Ripa Board Annual Report 2022, Appendix

R & ACIAL I DENTITY P ROFILING A DVISORY BOARD 2022 Appendices i Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices APPENDIX A – REPORT BODY DESCRIPTIVE TABLES 1 A.1 Stops by Identity Group and Reason for Stop 1 A.2 Stops by Identity Group and Traffic Violation Type 3 A.3 Stops by Identity Group and Reason for Stop - Reasonable Suspicion Subcategories 4 A.4 Stops by Identity Group and Calls for Service 8 A.5 Stops by Identity Group and Calls for Service without Traffic Violations 10 A.6 Stops by Identity Group and Average Actions Taken During Stop 12 A.7 Stops by Identity Group and Actions Taken During Stop 14 A.8 All Actions Taken During Stop by Race/Ethnicity 16 A.9 All Actions Taken During Stop by Gender 19 A.10 All Actions Taken During Stop by Age Group 21 A.11 All Actions Taken During Stop by LGBT, Limited English Fluency, or Disability Group 23 A.12 Stops by Identity Group and Stop Result for Handcuffed Individuals 25 A.13 Stops by Identity Group and Stop Result 27 A.14 Consent Inquiries and Search Rates 29 A.15 Consent Search Rates 30 A.16 Consent Search Discovery Rates 31 A.17 Reason for Stop for Consent Only Searches 32 A.18 Reason for Stop for Consent Only Search by Search Type 33 A.19 Known Supervision Searches 34 A.20 Supervision Search Discovery Rates 35 A.21 Reason for Stop by Search Type 36 A.22 Search Rates by Gender 39 A.23 Search Discovery Rates by Gender 39 A.24 Use of Force Rates by Gender 40 A.25 Reason for Stop by Gender 41 A.26 Reason for Stop Reasonable Suspicion Subfields by Gender 41 A.27 Search Rates by Disability 42 A.28 Search Discovery Rates by Disability 42 A.29 Use of Force Rates by Disability 43 A.30 Reason for Stop subfield by Disability 43 A.31 Reason for Stop Reasonable Suspicion subfields by Disability 44 APPENDIX B – TRAFFIC VIOLATION CODE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 45 B.1 Traffic Violation Vehicle Code Section Tables 45 B.1.1 Vehicle Code Section Groupings 45 B.1.2 Top Five Vehicle Code Sections Reported for Moving Violations (All Agencies) 47 B.1.3 Top Five Vehicle Code Sections Reported for Non-Moving/Equipment Violations (All Agencies) 48 APPENDIX C – DISPARITY TEST METHODS 51 C.1 Residential Population Comparison Analysis Methodology 51 C.1.1 Census Table B03002 52 C.2 Analysis Methodology 53 C.3 Veil of Darkness (VOD) Analysis Methodology 55 C.4 Use of Force Analysis Methodology 57 APPENDIX D – DISPARITY TEST TABLES 59 D.1 Residential Population Comparison Tables 59 D.1.1 Residential Population Comparison to All Stops 59 D.1.2 Residential Population Comparison to Calls for Service Stops 67 D.1.3 Residential Population Comparison to Officer-Initiated Stops 76 D.2 Discovery Rate Analysis Tables 85 D.2.1 Search Rates 85 D.2.2 Discovery Rates during Stops with Discretionary Searches 88 D.2.3 Discovery Rates during Stops with Administrative Searches 91 D.3 Veil of Darkness Analysis Table 94 D.4 Use of Force Analysis Table 97 APPENDIX E – WAVE 3 AND 4 BIAS-FREE POLICING POLICIES 100 101 E.1 Davis Police Department 111 E.2 Alameda County Sheriff’s Office 114 E.3 Kern County Sheriff’s Office 122 E.4 Los Angeles World Airport Police 125 E.5 Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office 130 E.6 Stockton Police Department 132 E.7 Anaheim Police Department 136 E.8 Berkeley Police Department 139 E.9 Cotati Police Department 143 E.10 Sonoma State University Police Department 147 E.11 Culver City Police Department 151 E.12 Fresno County Sheriff’s Office 155 E.13 Petaluma Police Department 159 E.14 Riverside Police Department 162 E.15 Rohnert Park Police Department 165 E.16 Santa Ana Police Department 170 E.17 Santa Rosa Police Department 173 E.18 San Francisco Sheriff’s Department 177 E.19 Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office 181 E.20 Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department 186 E.21 Ventura County Sheriff’s Office 189 E.22 Windsor Police Department APPENDIX F – WAVES 1 AND 2 REVISED BIAS-FREE POLICING POLICIES 193 F.1 California Highway Patrol 194 F.2 Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office 207 F.3 Orange County Sheriff’s Department 212 F.4 Fresno Police Department 217 APPENDIX G – AUGUST 24, 2021 LETTER FROM THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION TO THE RIPA BOARD 220 APPENDIX H – BREAKDOWN OF CIVILIAN COMPLAINTS 228 H.1 Racial and Identity Profiling Civilian Complaints for RIPA Reporting Agencies Table 228 APPENDIX I – WAVES 3 AND 4 CIVILIAN COMPLAINTS FORMS 232 I.1 Alameda County Sheriff’s Office 233 I.2 Anaheim Police Department 236 I.3 Fresno County Sheriff’s Office 240 I.4 Kern County Sheriff’s Office 244 I.5 Los Angeles World Airport Police 248 I.6 Riverside Police Department 252 I.7 San Francisco Sheriff’s Office 255 I.8 Santa Ana Police Department 259 I.9 Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office 264 I.10 Stockton Police Department 267 I.11 Ventura County Sheriff’s Office 270 I.12 Berkeley Police Department 275 I.13 Culver City Police Department 278 I.14 Davis Police Department 281 I.15 Petaluma Police Department 287 I.16 Rohnert Park Police Department 290 I.17 Santa Rosa Police Department 293 I.18 Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office 296 I.19 Sonoma State University Police Department 299 I.20 Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department 304 I.21 Cotati Police Department 315 APPENDIX J – POST QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM EVALUATION FORM (FORM NO. 2-341) 317 APPENDIX K – RIPA BOARD OCTOBER 22, 2021 LETTER TO POST REGARDING AB 846 REGULATIONS AND POST’S NOVEMBER 16, 2021 LETTER IN RESPONSE 325 APPENDIX A – REPORT BODY DESCRIPTIVE TABLES A.1 Stops by Identity Group and Reason for Stop Reasonable Identity Group Traffic Violation Other Reasons Total Suspicion Asian 141,640 (93.3%) 8,601 (5.7%) 1,572 (1.0%) 151,813 (100.0%) Black 377,318 (77.9%) 90,829 (18.8%) 16,217 (3.3%) 484,364 (100.0%) Hispanic 1,040,224 (87.6%) 118,608 (10.0%) 28,896 (2.4%) 1,187,728 (100.0%) Race/Ethnicity Middle Eastern/South Asian 130,470 (95.4%) 5,550 (4.1%) 786 (0.6%) 136,806 (100.0%) Multiracial 21,681 (84.1%) 3,287 (12.8%) 809 (3.1%) 25,777 (100.0%) Native American 5,128 (84.0%) 752 (12.3%) 225 (3.7%) 6,105 (100.0%) Pacific Islander 13,195 (86.3%) 1,718 (11.2%) 379 (2.5%) 15,292 (100.0%) White 798,410 (85.9%) 108,544 (11.7%) 22,822 (2.5%) 929,776 (100.0%) (Cisgender) Female 244,257 (73.1%) 76,576 (22.9%) 13,223 (4.0%) 334,056 (100.0%) Gender Nonconforming 769 (67.3%) 322 (28.2%) 52 (4.5%) 1,143 (100.0%) Gender (Cisgender) Male 597,599 (66.3%) 250,297 (27.8%) 53,254 (5.9%) 901,150 (100.0%) Transgender Man/Boy 1,410 (44.4%) 1,542 (48.6%) 223 (7.0%) 3,175 (100.0%) Transgender Woman/Girl 608 (34.8%) 1,043 (59.7%) 96 (5.5%) 1,747 (100.0%) 1-9 858 (62.1%) 352 (25.5%) 171 (12.4%) 1,381 (100.0%) 10-14 1,054 (23.6%) 2,743 (61.3%) 675 (15.1%) 4,472 (100.0%) 15-17 21,113 (65.4%) 8,869 (27.5%) 2,322 (7.2%) 32,304 (100.0%) Age Group 18-24 453,588 (89.2%) 45,208 (8.9%) 9,866 (1.9%) 508,662 (100.0%) 25-34 825,941 (85.4%) 114,198 (11.8%) 26,684 (2.8%) 966,823 (100.0%) 35-44 541,441 (84.9%) 79,427 (12.5%) 16,894 (2.6%) 637,762 (100.0%) 45-54 369,442 (85.9%) 50,846 (11.8%) 9,606 (2.2%) 429,894 (100.0%) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 1 Reasonable Identity Group Traffic Violation Other Reasons Total Suspicion 55-64 221,769 (87.2%) 28,097 (11.1%) 4,354 (1.7%) 254,220 (100.0%) 65+ 92,860 (90.9%) 8,145 (8.0%) 1,134 (1.1%) 102,139 (100.0%) LGBT LGBT 8,062 (47.6%) 7,781 (46.0%) 1,089 (6.4%) 16,932 (100.0%) Non-LGBT 836,581 (68.3%) 321,999 (26.3%) 65,760 (5.4%) 1,224,340 (100.0%) Limited English Fluency English Fluent 2,430,762 (86.1%) 321,828 (11.4%) 69,613 (2.5%) 2,822,203 (100.0%) Limited/No English Fluency 97,304 (84.3%) 16,061 (13.9%) 2,094 (1.8%) 115,459 (100.0%) Disability Disability 5,450 (15.3%) 26,800 (75.1%) 3,458 (9.7%) 35,708 (100.0%) No Disability 2,522,616 (86.9%) 311,089 (10.7%) 68,247 (2.4%) 2,901,952 (100.0%) Overall 2,528,066 (86.1%) 337,889 (11.5%) 71,707 (2.4%) 2,937,662 (100.0%) Note. Corrections to the total column counts were applied on 11/7/2023. Note. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) was excluded from the analysis of perceived gender and LGBT due to a technical error in CHP’s data. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 2 A.2 Stops by Identity Group and Traffic Violation Type Identity Group Equipment Moving Non-moving Total Asian 12,081 (8.5%) 113,440 (80.1%) 16,119 (11.4%) 141,640 (100.0%) Black 60,613 (16.1%) 259,030 (68.7%) 57,672 (15.3%) 377,315 (100.0%) Hispanic 155,169 (14.9%) 746,577 (71.8%) 138,466 (13.3%) 1,040,212 (100.0%) Race/Ethnicity Middle Eastern/South Asian 14,685 (11.3%) 100,494 (77.0%) 15,291 (11.7%) 130,470 (100.0%) Multiracial 2,980 (13.7%) 15,777 (72.8%) 2,924 (13.5%) 21,681 (100.0%) Native American 715 (13.9%) 3,702 (72.2%) 711 (13.9%) 5,128 (100.0%) Pacific Islander 1,421 (10.8%) 10,037 (76.1%) 1,737 (13.2%) 13,195 (100.0%) White 83,488 (10.5%) 601,440 (75.3%) 113,477 (14.2%) 798,405 (100.0%) (Cisgender) Female 38,870 (15.9%) 177,813 (72.8%) 27,567 (11.3%) 244,250 (100.0%) Gender Nonconforming 96 (12.5%) 642 (83.5%) 31 (4.0%) 769 (100.0%) Gender (Cisgender) Male 130,227 (21.8%) 391,306 (65.5%) 76,053 (12.7%) 597,586 (100.0%) Transgender Man/Boy 194 (13.8%) 1,028 (72.9%) 188 (13.3%) 1,410 (100.0%) Transgender Woman/Girl 131 (21.5%) 399 (65.6%) 78 (12.8%) 608 (100.0%) 1-9 157 (18.3%) 596 (69.5%) 105 (12.2%) 858 (100.0%) 10-14 225 (21.3%) 634 (60.2%) 195 (18.5%) 1,054 (100.0%) 15-17 2,472 (11.7%) 16,514 (78.2%) 2,126 (10.1%) 21,112 (100.0%) 18-24 50,421 (11.1%) 358,299 (79.0%) 44,864 (9.9%) 453,584 (100.0%) Age Group 25-34 110,879 (13.4%) 601,406 (72.8%) 113,648 (13.8%) 825,933 (100.0%) 35-44 75,522 (13.9%) 382,311 (70.6%) 83,603 (15.4%) 541,436 (100.0%) 45-54 53,350 (14.4%) 258,876 (70.1%) 57,216 (15.5%) 369,442 (100.0%) 55-64 29,798 (13.4%) 159,094 (71.7%) 32,876 (14.8%) 221,768 (100.0%) 65+ 8,328 (9.0%) 72,767 (78.4%) 11,764 (12.7%) 92,859 (100.0%) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 3 Identity Group Equipment Moving Non-moving Total LGBT LGBT 1,741 (21.6%) 5,324 (66.0%) 997 (12.4%) 8,062 (100.0%) Non-LGBT 167,777 (20.1%) 565,864 (67.6%) 102,920 (12.3%) 836,561 (100.0%) Limited English English Fluent 314,057 (12.9%) 1,782,632 (73.3%) 334,053 (13.7%) 2,430,742 (100.0%) Fluency Limited/No English Fluency 17,095 (17.6%) 67,865 (69.7%) 12,344 (12.7%) 97,304 (100.0%) Disability Disability 743 (13.6%) 3,689 (67.7%) 1,018 (18.7%) 5,450 (100.0%) No Disability 330,409 (13.1%) 1,846,808 (73.2%) 345,379 (13.7%) 2,522,596 (100.0%) Overall 331,152 (13.1%) 1,850,497 (73.2%) 346,397 (13.7%) 2,528,046 (100.0%) Note. Corrections to the total column counts were applied on 11/7/2023. Note. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) was excluded from the analysis of perceived gender and LGBT due to a technical error in CHP’s data. A.3 Stops by Identity Group and Reason for Stop - Reasonable Suspicion Subcategories Suspected Actions Matched Carrying Actions Officer Witness Drug of Acting Indicative Identity Group Suspect Suspicious Indicative Other Witness Identification Transaction as of Violent Description Object of Casing Lookout Crime 3,023 2,712 2,371 Asian 1,652 100 (1.2%) 75 (0.9%) 55 (0.6%) 19 (0.2%) 51 (0.6%) (35.2%) (31.6%) (27.6%) (19.2%) 32,589 32,397 17,485 1,674 558 431 22,216 Black 890 (1.0%) 833 (0.9%) (35.9%) (35.7%) (19.3%) (1.8%) (0.6%) (0.5%) (24.5%) 39,140 44,671 20,197 1,763 958 660 28,173 Hispanic 1,148 747 (0.6%) (33.0%) (37.7%) (17.0%) (1.5%) (0.8%) (0.6%) (23.8%) (1.0%) Race/Ethnicity Middle 1,949 1,655 1,494 Eastern/South 1,191 44 (0.8%) 24 (0.4%) 47 (0.8%) 20 (0.4%) 35 (0.6%) (35.1%) (29.8%) (26.9%) Asian (21.5%) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 4 Suspected Actions Matched Carrying Actions Officer Witness Drug of Acting Indicative Identity Group Suspect Suspicious Indicative Other Witness Identification Transaction as of Violent Description Object of Casing Lookout Crime 1,403 1,056 813 Multiracial 592 (18.0%) 53 (1.6%) 31 (0.9%) 43 (1.3%) 18 (0.5%) 28 (0.9%) (42.7%) (32.2%) (24.8%) Native 279 260 186 105 (14.0%) 4 (0.5%) 8 (1.1%) 6 (0.8%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (0.4%) American (37.2%) (34.7%) (24.8%) 633 540 420 Pacific Islander 307 (17.9%) 15 (0.9%) 12 (0.7%) 11 (0.6%) 7 (0.4%) 17 (1.0%) (36.9%) (31.5%) (24.5%) 40,279 40,351 14,831 1003 981 294 24,079 White 700 (0.6%) 523 (0.5%) (37.1%) (37.2%) (13.7%) (0.9%) (0.9%) (0.3%) (22.2%) (Cisgender) 25,314 26,567 13,195 400 279 20,456 511 (0.7%) 568 (0.7%) 404 (0.5%) Female (33.1%) (34.7%) (17.2%) (0.5%) (0.4%) (26.7%) Gender 156 99 75 60 (18.6%) 11 (3.4%) 3 (0.9%) 7 (2.2%) 12 (3.7%) 5 (1.6%) Gender Nonconforming (48.4%) (30.7%) (23.3%) (Cisgender) 90,935 92,727 41,262 3,991 2,177 1,137 1,606 56,319 2,231 Male (36.4%) (37.1%) (16.5%) (1.6%) (0.9%) (0.5%) (0.6%) (22.5%) (0.9%) Transgender 620 496 324 339 (22.0%) 25 (1.6%) 9 (0.6%) 5 (0.3%) 6 (0.4%) 13 (0.8%) Man/Boy (40.2%) (32.2%) (21.0%) Transgender 430 320 251 253 (24.3%) 17 (1.6%) 8 (0.8%) 1 (0.1%) 5 (0.5%) 10 (1.0%) Woman/Girl (41.2%) (30.7%) (24.1%) 60 201 1-9 84 (23.9%) 33 (9.4%) 3 (0.9%) 2 (0.6%) 1 (0.3%) 1 (0.3%) 2 (0.6%) (17.1%) (57.3%) 1,017 406 1,053 10-14 529 (19.3%) 53 (1.9%) 9 (0.3%) 13 (0.5%) 24 (0.9%) 32 (1.2%) (37.2%) (14.9%) (38.5%) 3,196 2,255 2,962 15-17 1,476 (16.7%) 228 (2.6%) 70 (0.8%) 49 (0.6%) 96 (1.1%) 96 (1.1%) (36.1%) (25.5%) (33.4%) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 5 Suspected Actions Matched Carrying Actions Officer Witness Drug of Acting Indicative Identity Group Suspect Suspicious Indicative Other Witness Identification Transaction as of Violent Description Object of Casing Lookout Crime Age Group 14,151 17,011 397 322 12,264 18-24 6,736 845 (1.9%) 492 (1.1%) 436 (1.0%) (31.3%) (37.6%) (0.9%) (0.7%) (27.1%) (14.9%) 41,744 40,168 20,193 1,755 1,029 552 27,115 25-34 1,074 796 (0.7%) (36.6%) (35.2%) (17.7%) (1.5%) (0.9%) (0.5%) (23.8%) (0.9%) 30,016 27,860 14,071 1,022 647 261 17,868 35-44 587 (0.7%) 487 (0.6%) (37.8%) (35.1%) (17.7%) (1.3%) (0.8%) (0.3%) (22.5%) 17,633 20,319 374 129 10,772 45-54 7,987 526 (1.0%) 403 (0.8%) 252 (0.5%) (34.7%) (40.0%) (0.7%) (0.3%) (21.2%) (15.7%) 8,787 12,410 123 5,653 55-64 4,090 182 (0.6%) 210 (0.7%) 57 (0.2%) 116 (0.4%) (31.3%) (44.2%) (0.4%) (20.1%) (14.6%) 2,666 3,153 1,861 65+ 1,245 42 (0.5%) 41 (0.5%) 26 (0.3%) 7 (0.1%) 20 (0.2%) (32.8%) (38.8%) (22.9%) (15.3%) LGBT 3,416 2,485 1,495 LGBT 1,342 71 (0.9%) 50 (0.6%) 49 (0.6%) 31 (0.4%) 53 (0.7%) (43.9%) (32.0%) (19.2%) (17.3%) 114,039 117,724 53,767 4,484 2,541 1,408 1,985 75,930 Non-LGBT 2,769 (35.4%) (36.6%) (16.7%) (1.4%) (0.8%) (0.4%) (0.6%) (23.6%) (0.9%) Limited 114,268 117,335 52,423 4,436 2,576 1,386 2,138 76,403 English Fluent 2,657 English (35.5%) (36.5%) (16.3%) (1.4%) (0.8%) (0.4%) (0.7%) (23.8%) (0.8%) Fluency Limited/No 5,027 6,307 3,349 3,937 220 (1.4%) 231 (1.4%) 83 (0.5%) 63 (0.4%) 99 (0.6%) English Fluency (31.3%) (39.3%) (20.9%) (24.5%) Disability 11,364 3,969 101 10,770 Disability 5,660 317 (1.2%) 53 (0.2%) 15 (0.1%) 167 (0.6%) (42.5%) (14.8%) (0.4%) (40.3%) (21.2%) 107,931 119,673 50,700 4,339 2,558 1,434 2,070 68,982 No Disability 2,835 (34.7%) (38.5%) (16.3%) (1.4%) (0.8%) (0.5%) (0.7%) (22.2%) (0.9%) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 6 Suspected Actions Matched Carrying Actions Officer Witness Drug of Acting Indicative Identity Group Suspect Suspicious Indicative Other Witness Identification Transaction as of Violent Description Object of Casing Lookout Crime Note. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) was excluded from the analysis of perceived gender and LGBT due to a technical error in CHP’s data. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 7 A.4 Stops by Identity Group and Calls for Service Identity Group Officer-initiated Stops Call for Service Stops Total Asian 146,880 (96.8%) 4,933 (3.2%) 151,813 (100.0%) Black 437,531 (90.3%) 46,833 (9.7%) 484,364 (100.0%) Hispanic 1,128,563 (95.0%) 59,165 (5.0%) 1,187,728 (100.0%) Race/Ethnicity Middle Eastern/South Asian 133,274 (97.4%) 3,532 (2.6%) 136,806 (100.0%) Multiracial 23,942 (92.9%) 1,835 (7.1%) 25,777 (100.0%) Native American 5,727 (93.8%) 378 (6.2%) 6,105 (100.0%) Pacific Islander 14,369 (94.0%) 923 (6.0%) 15,292 (100.0%) White 875,408 (94.2%) 54,368 (5.8%) 929,776 (100.0%) (Cisgender) Female 294,588 (88.2%) 39,468 (11.8%) 334,056 (100.0%) Gender Nonconforming 956 (83.6%) 187 (16.4%) 1,143 (100.0%) Gender (Cisgender) Male 782,810 (86.9%) 118,340 (13.1%) 901,150 (100.0%) Transgender Man/Boy 2,298 (72.4%) 877 (27.6%) 3,175 (100.0%) Transgender Woman/Girl 1,170 (67.0%) 577 (33.0%) 1,747 (100.0%) 1-9 1,139 (82.5%) 242 (17.5%) 1,381 (100.0%) 10-14 2,585 (57.8%) 1,887 (42.2%) 4,472 (100.0%) 15-17 27,368 (84.7%) 4,936 (15.3%) 32,304 (100.0%) 18-24 486,236 (95.6%) 22,426 (4.4%) 508,662 (100.0%) Age Group 25-34 906,647 (93.8%) 60,176 (6.2%) 966,823 (100.0%) 35-44 595,842 (93.4%) 41,920 (6.6%) 637,762 (100.0%) 45-54 405,941 (94.4%) 23,953 (5.6%) 429,894 (100.0%) 55-64 242,009 (95.2%) 12,211 (4.8%) 254,220 (100.0%) 65+ 97,925 (95.9%) 4,214 (4.1%) 102,139 (100.0%) LGBT LGBT 13,378 (79.0%) 3,554 (21.0%) 16,932 (100.0%) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 8 Identity Group Officer-initiated Stops Call for Service Stops Total Non-LGBT 1,068,444 (87.3%) 155,896 (12.7%) 1,224,340 (100.0%) Limited English Fluency English Fluent 2,660,100 (94.3%) 162,103 (5.7%) 2,822,203 (100.0%) Limited/No English Fluency 105,594 (91.5%) 9,865 (8.5%) 115,459 (100.0%) Disability Disability 15,165 (42.5%) 20,543 (57.5%) 35,708 (100.0%) No Disability 2,750,529 (94.8%) 151,423 (5.2%) 2,901,952 (100.0%) Overall 2,765,694 (94.1%) 171,968 (5.9%) 2,937,662 (100.0%) Note. Corrections to the total column counts were applied on 11/7/2023. Note. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) was excluded from the analysis of perceived gender and LGBT due to a technical error in CHP’s data. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 9 A.5 Stops by Identity Group and Calls for Service without Traffic Violations Identity Group Officer-initiated Stops Call for Service Stops Total Asian 5,923 (58.2%) 4,250 (41.8%) 10,173 (100.0%) Black 63,896 (59.7%) 43,150 (40.3%) 107,046 (100.0%) Hispanic 97,942 (66.4%) 49,562 (33.6%) 147,504 (100.0%) Race/Ethnicity Middle Eastern/South Asian 3,477 (54.9%) 2,859 (45.1%) 6,336 (100.0%) Multiracial 2,459 (60.0%) 1,637 (40.0%) 4,096 (100.0%) Native American 680 (69.6%) 297 (30.4%) 977 (100.0%) Pacific Islander 1,264 (60.3%) 833 (39.7%) 2,097 (100.0%) White 83,749 (63.8%) 47,617 (36.2%) 131,366 (100.0%) (Cisgender) Female 53,197 (59.2%) 36,602 (40.8%) 89,799 (100.0%) Gender Nonconforming 191 (51.1%) 183 (48.9%) 374 (100.0%) Gender (Cisgender) Male 193,149 (63.6%) 110,402 (36.4%) 303,551 (100.0%) Transgender Man/Boy 932 (52.8%) 833 (47.2%) 1,765 (100.0%) Transgender Woman/Girl 584 (51.3%) 555 (48.7%) 1,139 (100.0%) 1-9 298 (57.0%) 225 (43.0%) 523 (100.0%) 10-14 1,567 (45.8%) 1,851 (54.2%) 3,418 (100.0%) 15-17 6,639 (59.3%) 4,552 (40.7%) 11,191 (100.0%) 18-24 36,835 (66.9%) 18,239 (33.1%) 55,074 (100.0%) Age Group 25-34 87,928 (62.4%) 52,954 (37.6%) 140,882 (100.0%) 35-44 59,009 (61.3%) 37,312 (38.7%) 96,321 (100.0%) 45-54 39,326 (65.1%) 21,126 (34.9%) 60,452 (100.0%) 55-64 21,955 (67.7%) 10,496 (32.3%) 32,451 (100.0%) 65+ 5,831 (62.8%) 3,448 (37.2%) 9,279 (100.0%) LGBT LGBT 5,462 (61.6%) 3,408 (38.4%) 8,870 (100.0%) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 10 Identity Group Officer-initiated Stops Call for Service Stops Total Non-LGBT 242,591 (62.6%) 145,168 (37.4%) 387,759 (100.0%) Limited English Fluency English Fluent 249,093 (63.6%) 142,348 (36.4%) 391,441 (100.0%) Limited/No English Fluency 10,297 (56.7%) 7,858 (43.3%) 18,155 (100.0%) Disability Disability 10,179 (33.6%) 20,079 (66.4%) 30,258 (100.0%) No Disability 249,211 (65.7%) 130,125 (34.3%) 379,336 (100.0%) Overall 259,390 (63.3%) 150,206 (36.7%) 409,596 (100.0%) Note. Corrections to the total column counts were applied on 11/7/2023. Note. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) was excluded from the analysis of perceived gender and LGBT due to a technical error in CHP’s data. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 11 A.6 Stops by Identity Group and Average Actions Taken During Stop Average Number of Actions Taken Identity Group Stops with One or More Actions All Stops Taken Asian 0.22 2.52 Black 0.84 2.70 Hispanic 0.54 2.69 Middle Eastern/South Asian 0.17 2.40 Race/Ethnicity Multiracial 0.62 2.84 Native American 0.57 2.73 Pacific Islander 0.46 2.75 White 0.40 2.63 (Cisgender) Female 0.69 2.39 Gender Nonconforming 0.86 2.62 Gender (Cisgender) Male 1.16 2.72 Transgender Man/Boy 1.55 2.58 Transgender Woman/Girl 1.57 2.54 1-9 0.50 1.92 10-14 1.42 2.19 15-17 1.10 2.55 18-24 0.51 2.67 Age Group 25-34 0.61 2.76 35-44 0.53 2.72 45-54 0.40 2.54 55-64 0.30 2.39 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 12 Average Number of Actions Taken Identity Group Stops with One or More Actions All Stops Taken 65+ 0.19 2.16 Non-LGBT 1.03 2.66 LGBT LGBT 1.29 2.66 Limited/No English Fluency 0.50 2.67 Limited English Fluency English Fluent 0.63 2.58 No Disability 0.49 2.68 Disability Disability 1.85 2.49 O erall 0.51 2.67 Notes. Data submitted by the CHP was excluded from the analysis of perceived gender and LGBT due to a technical error in CHP’s data. The “actions taken during stop” field of the stop data collection template is a mandatory field that must be completed regardless of whether officers took action during the stop. Given that officers must input a value for this field, the entry of “no action taken” constitutes a selectable option for this field. Officers indicated “no action taken” for 80.9% of stop records. To account for the differences in stops that have actions taken in comparison to those in which officer selected “no action taken,” the analysis of average number of actions taken was calculated two ways: 1) examining all stops, including stops with no actions taken and 2) examining only stops in which one or more actions were taken (560,926) excluding the stops with a selection of “no action taken.” For the purpose of these analyses, stops for which officers selected “no action taken” are treated as zeroes when calculating the sum portion of the equations. The average number of actions taken, for all stops, is calculated by obtaining the sum of the number of actions taken across all stops, then dividing the sum by the total number of stops. The average number of actions taken for stops with one or more actions taken is calculated by first filtering out all stops where officers selected “no action taken,” then obtaining the sum of the number of actions taken for the remaining stops, then dividing the sum by the number of stops during which officers took one or more actions. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 13 A.7 Stops by Identity Group and Actions Taken During Stop Ordered Vehicle Identity Group Searched Handcuffed Detained Exit Asian 7,292 (4.8%) 6,391 (4.2%) 7,360 (4.8%) 2,186 (1.4%) Black 100,333 (20.7%) 74,057 (15.3%) 84,160 (17.4%) 35,296 (7.3%) Hispanic 148,506 (12.5%) 120,639 (10.2%) 121,224 (10.2%) 53,575 (4.5%) Middle Eastern/South Asian 4,762 (3.5%) 4,497 (3.3%) 4,946 (3.6%) 1,782 (1.3%) Race/Ethnicity Multiracial 3,653 (14.2%) 2,786 (10.8%) 3,146 (12.2%) 1,234 (4.8%) Native American 775 (12.7%) 699 (11.4%) 588 (9.6%) 225 (3.7%) Pacific Islander 1,572 (10.3%) 1,361 (8.9%) 1,490 (9.7%) 529 (3.5%) White 81,556 (8.8%) 69,548 (7.5%) 81,804 (8.8%) 20,403 (2.2%) (Cisgender) Female 49,342 (14.8%) 43,533 (13.0%) 60,472 (18.1%) 17,148 (5.1%) Gender Nonconforming 229 (20.0%) 177 (15.5%) 207 (18.1%) 87 (7.6%) Gender (Cisgender) Male 253,845 (28.2%) 195,162 (21.7%) 229,014 (25.4%) 76,530 (8.5%) Transgender Man/Boy 1,275 (40.2%) 1,152 (36.3%) 929 (29.3%) 258 (8.1%) Transgender Woman/Girl 646 (37.0%) 731 (41.9%) 609 (34.9%) 123 (7.0%) 1-9 170 (12.3%) 73 (5.3%) 220 (15.9%) 45 (3.3%) 10-14 1,608 (36.0%) 1,434 (32.1%) 1,693 (37.9%) 211 (4.7%) 15-17 8,881 (27.5%) 7,238 (22.4%) 7,431 (23.0%) 2,772 (8.6%) 18-24 60,946 (12.0%) 46,660 (9.2%) 49,013 (9.6%) 26,717 (5.3%) Age Group 25-34 138,426 (14.3%) 109,091 (11.3%) 113,626 (11.8%) 47,781 (4.9%) 35-44 78,418 (12.3%) 64,533 (10.1%) 70,292 (11.0%) 22,660 (3.6%) 45-54 38,841 (9.0%) 32,661 (7.6%) 38,882 (9.0%) 10,067 (2.3%) 55-64 17,030 (6.7%) 14,813 (5.8%) 18,656 (7.3%) 4,039 (1.6%) 65+ 4,127 (4.0%) 3,474 (3.4%) 4,905 (4.8%) 938 (0.9%) LGBT LGBT 5,031 (29.7%) 4,903 (29.0%) 4,887 (28.9%) 1,051 (6.2%) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 14 Ordered Vehicle Identity Group Searched Handcuffed Detained Exit Non-LGBT 300,307 (24.5%) 235,852 (19.3%) 286,344 (23.4%) 93,095 (7.6%) English Fluent 331,970 (11.8%) 265,455 (9.4%) 291,645 (10.3%) 109,227 (3.9%) Limited English Fluency Limited/No English Fluency 16,480 (14.3%) 14,523 (12.6%) 13,073 (11.3%) 6,003 (5.2%) Disability 17,158 (48.1%) 18,493 (51.8%) 15,615 (43.7%) 1,007 (2.8%) Disability No Disability 331,291 (11.4%) 261,484 (9.0%) 289,102 (10.0%) 114,223 (3.9%) Overall 348,450 (11.9%) 279,978 (9.5%) 304,718 (10.4%) 115,230 (3.9%) Notes. Data submitted by the CHP was excluded from the analysis of perceived gender and LGBT due to a technical error in CHP’s data. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 15 A.8 All Actions Taken During Stop by Race/Ethnicity Middle Native Pacific Action Taken Asian Black Hispanic Eastern/South Multiracial White American Islander Asian Removed from Vehicle by 2,186 35,296 53,575 20,403 1,782 (1.3%) 1,234 (4.8%) 225 (3.7%) 529 (3.5%) Order (1.4%) (7.3%) (4.5%) (2.2%) Removed from Vehicle by 2,803 2,997 1,495 162 (0.1%) 109 (0.1%) 77 (0.3%) 7 (0.1%) 41 (0.3%) Physical Contact (0.6%) (0.3%) (0.2%) 1,883 7,538 29,341 16,855 Field Sobriety Test 1,542 (1.1%) 462 (1.8%) 324 (5.3%) 312 (2.0%) (1.2%) (1.6%) (2.5%) (1.8%) 4,315 55,254 81,367 53,248 Curbside Detention 2,975 (2.2%) 1,874 (7.3%) 388 (6.4%) 911 (6.0%) (2.8%) (11.4%) (6.9%) (5.7%) 6,391 74,057 120,639 1361 69,548 Handcuffed 4,497 (3.3%) 2,786 (10.8%) 699 (11.4%) (4.2%) (15.3%) (10.2%) (8.9%) (7.5%) 3,646 36,134 51,369 36,649 Patrol Car Detention 2,395 (1.8%) 1,588 (6.2%) 274 (4.5%) 727 (4.8%) (2.4%) (7.5%) (4.3%) (3.9%) 1,163 Canine Search 86 (0.1%) 331 (0.1%) 48 (0.0%) 22 (0.1%) 3 (0.0%) 10 (0.1%) 502 (0.1%) (0.1%) 4,340 6,448 2,975 Firearm Point 326 (0.2%) 192 (0.1%) 162 (0.6%) 31 (0.5%) 70 (0.5%) (0.9%) (0.5%) (0.3%) Firearm Discharge 2 (0.0%) 34 (0.0%) 74 (0.0%) 1 (0.0%) 2 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 33 (0.0%) Electronic Control Device 14 (0.0%) 187 (0.0%) 248 (0.0%) 5 (0.0%) 10 (0.0%) 5 (0.1%) 2 (0.0%) 192 (0.0%) Impact Projectile Discharge 6 (0.0%) 86 (0.0%) 125 (0.0%) 3 (0.0%) 3 (0.0%) 2 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 79 (0.0%) Canine Bite 7 (0.0%) 46 (0.0%) 60 (0.0%) 3 (0.0%) 3 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 54 (0.0%) Baton 3 (0.0%) 48 (0.0%) 66 (0.0%) 1 (0.0%) 3 (0.0%) 3 (0.0%) 1 (0.0%) 53 (0.0%) Chemical Spray 5 (0.0%) 86 (0.0%) 88 (0.0%) 5 (0.0%) 1 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (0.0%) 85 (0.0%) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 16 Middle Native Pacific Action Taken Asian Black Hispanic Eastern/South Multiracial White American Islander Asian Other Physical of Vehicle 2,883 3,281 3,436 376 (0.2%) 243 (0.2%) 148 (0.6%) 40 (0.7%) 66 (0.4%) Contact (0.6%) (0.3%) (0.4%) 3,141 6,768 6,600 Person Photographed 497 (0.3%) 273 (0.2%) 261 (1.0%) 81 (1.3%) 141 (0.9%) (0.6%) (0.6%) (0.7%) Asked for Consent to Search 1,217 14,752 27,460 19,137 692 (0.5%) 913 (3.5%) 115 (1.9%) 276 (1.8%) Person (0.8%) (3.0%) (2.3%) (2.1%) 6,603 92,145 137,420 1,447 75,513 Searched Person 4,402 (3.2%) 3,350 (13.0%) 726 (11.9%) (4.3%) (19.0%) (11.6%) (9.5%) (8.1%) Asked for Consent to Search 12,323 19,189 10,970 986 (0.6%) 516 (0.4%) 552 (2.1%) 66 (1.1%) 156 (1.0%) Property (2.5%) (1.6%) (1.2%) 3,055 49,987 63,175 33,870 Searched Property 1,843 (1.3%) 1,711 (6.6%) 270 (4.4%) 664 (4.3%) (2.0%) (10.3%) (5.3%) (3.6%) 6,366 9,497 8,162 Property Seized 867 (0.6%) 385 (0.3%) 324 (1.3%) 67 (1.1%) 170 (1.1%) (1.3%) (0.8%) (0.9%) 7,455 23,643 10,278 Vehicle Impound 973 (0.6%) 841 (0.6%) 405 (1.6%) 163 (2.7%) 223 (1.5%) (1.5%) (2.0%) (1.1%) Admission/Written Statement 2 (0.0%) 54 (0.0%) 107 (0.0%) 1 (0.0%) 2 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 24 (0.0%) Obtained from Student 138,472 333,999 950,372 20,183 12,704 788,840 No Action Taken 127,341 (93.1%) 4,825 (79.0%) (91.2%) (69.0%) (80.0%) (78.3%) (83.1%) (84.8%) 1,150 13,900 26,403 266 18,150 Search Person Consent Given 663 (95.8%) 878 (96.2%) 106 (92.2%) (94.5%) (94.2%) (96.2%) (96.4%) (94.8%) Search Property Consent 907 11,493 18,195 147 10,141 481 (93.2%) 523 (94.7%) 59 (89.4%) Given (92.0%) (93.3%) (94.8%) (94.2%) (92.4%) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 17 Middle Native Pacific Action Taken Asian Black Hispanic Eastern/South Multiracial White American Islander Asian Notes. Due to the values only being selectable under certain circumstances, percentages for the variables “Search Person Consent Given” and “Search Property Consent Given” are calculated based on the number of individuals from the given racial or ethnic group that officers asked for consent to perform a search, rather than the total number of stopped individuals from the given racial or ethnic group. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 18 A.9 All Actions Taken During Stop by Gender (Cisgender) Gender (Cisgender) Transgender Transgender Action Taken Female Nonconforming Male Man/Boy Woman/Girl Removed from Vehicle by Order 17,148 (5.1%) 87 (7.6%) 76,530 (8.5%) 258 (8.1%) 123 (7.0%) Removed from Vehicle by Physical 1,029 (0.3%) 4 (0.3%) 6,124 (0.7%) 15 (0.5%) 9 (0.5%) Contact Field Sobriety Test 2,276 (0.7%) 8 (0.7%) 9,788 (1.1%) 36 (1.1%) 18 (1.0%) Curbside Detention 38,566 (11.5%) 140 (12.2%) 150,673 (16.7%) 699 (22.0%) 416 (23.8%) Handcuffed 43,533 (13.0%) 177 (15.5%) 195,162 (21.7%) 1,152 (36.3%) 731 (41.9%) Patrol Car Detention 27,056 (8.1%) 96 (8.4%) 99,484 (11.0%) 367 (11.6%) 281 (16.1%) Canine Search 160 (0.0%) 3 (0.3%) 966 (0.1%) 3 (0.1%) 0 (0.0%) Firearm Point 2,135 (0.6%) 9 (0.8%) 10,773 (1.2%) 61 (1.9%) 34 (1.9%) Firearm Discharge 11 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 79 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Electronic Control Device 36 (0.0%) 1 (0.1%) 496 (0.1%) 4 (0.1%) 1 (0.1%) Impact Projectile Discharge 33 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 244 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Canine Bite 13 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 130 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Baton 16 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 140 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.1%) Chemical Spray 51 (0.0%) 1 (0.1%) 202 (0.0%) 1 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Other Physical of Vehicle Contact 2,433 (0.7%) 7 (0.6%) 7,080 (0.8%) 28 (0.9%) 17 (1.0%) Person Photographed 3,517 (1.1%) 17 (1.5%) 11,728 (1.3%) 36 (1.1%) 39 (2.2%) Asked for Consent to Search Person 9,536 (2.9%) 45 (3.9%) 54,134 (6.0%) 213 (6.7%) 63 (3.6%) Searched Person 42,232 (12.6%) 192 (16.8%) 236,892 (26.3%) 1,193 (37.6%) 592 (33.9%) Asked for Consent to Search Property 7,377 (2.2%) 48 (4.2%) 36,104 (4.0%) 189 (6.0%) 56 (3.2%) Searched Property 24,296 (7.3%) 105 (9.2%) 119,907 (13.3%) 553 (17.4%) 272 (15.6%) Property Seized 4,253 (1.3%) 27 (2.4%) 19,078 (2.1%) 53 (1.7%) 62 (3.6%) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 19 (Cisgender) Gender (Cisgender) Transgender Transgender Action Taken Female Nonconforming Male Man/Boy Woman/Girl Vehicle Impound 3,390 (1.0%) 11 (1.0%) 13,009 (1.4%) 51 (1.6%) 23 (1.3%) Admission/Written Statement 67 (0.0%) 1 (0.1%) 122 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Obtained from Student No Action Taken 238,254 (71.3%) 770 (67.4%) 515,804 (57.2%) 1,269 (40.0%) 669 (38.3%) Search Person Consent Given 9,058 (95.0%) 44 (97.8%) 51,682 (95.5%) 205 (96.2%) 59 (93.7%) Search Property Consent Given 6,901 (93.5%) 45 (93.8%) 34,019 (94.2%) 183 (96.8%) 52 (92.9%) Notes. The CHP was excluded from the analysis of perceived gender due to a technical error. Percentages for the variables “Search Person Consent Given” and “Search Property Consent Given” are calculated based on the number of individuals officers asked for consent to search and individuals officers asked for consent to search their property from the given gender group and not the total number of individuals stopped from the given gender group. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 20 A.10 All Actions Taken During Stop by Age Group Action Taken 1-9 10-14 15-17 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Removed from Vehicle by 211 2,772 26,717 47,781 22,660 10,067 4,039 938 45 (3.3%) Order (4.7%) (8.6%) (5.3%) (4.9%) (3.6%) (2.3%) (1.6%) (0.9%) Removed from Vehicle by 217 1,622 3,335 1,566 638 239 10 (0.7%) 23 (0.5%) 41 (0.0%) Physical Contact (0.7%) (0.3%) (0.3%) (0.2%) (0.1%) (0.1%) 425 11,953 22,265 12,137 6,476 3,719 1,279 Field Sobriety Test 0 (0.0%) 3 (0.1%) (1.3%) (2.3%) (2.3%) (1.9%) (1.5%) (1.5%) (1.3%) 877 4,779 33,265 73,779 45,557 25,873 12,833 3,255 Curbside Detention 114 (8.3%) (19.6%) (14.8%) (6.5%) (7.6%) (7.1%) (6.0%) (5.0%) (3.2%) 1,434 7,238 46,660 109,091 64,533 32,661 14,813 3,474 Handcuffed 73 (5.3%) (32.1%) (22.4%) (9.2%) (11.3%) (10.1%) (7.6%) (5.8%) (3.4%) 1,009 3,492 19,949 50,739 31,524 16,513 7,423 2,018 Patrol Car Detention 115 (8.3%) (22.6%) (10.8%) (3.9%) (5.2%) (4.9%) (3.8%) (2.9%) (2.0%) 328 916 532 221 Canine Search 0 (0.0%) 3 (0.1%) 48 (0.1%) 96 (0.0%) 21 (0.0%) (0.1%) (0.1%) (0.1%) (0.1%) 626 2,930 5,833 3,118 1,342 501 109 Firearm Point 6 (0.4%) 79 (1.8%) (1.9%) (0.6%) (0.6%) (0.5%) (0.3%) (0.2%) (0.1%) Firearm Discharge 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (0.0%) 43 (0.0%) 50 (0.0%) 24 (0.0%) 14 (0.0%) 7 (0.0%) 3 (0.0%) 276 193 Electronic Control Device 0 (0.0%) 2 (0.0%) 11 (0.0%) 83 (0.0%) 58 (0.0%) 34 (0.0%) 6 (0.0%) (0.0%) (0.0%) 128 Impact Projectile Discharge 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (0.0%) 29 (0.0%) 82 (0.0%) 42 (0.0%) 17 (0.0%) 3 (0.0%) (0.0%) Canine Bite 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.0%) 2 (0.0%) 28 (0.0%) 63 (0.0%) 45 (0.0%) 19 (0.0%) 15 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Baton 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (0.0%) 20 (0.0%) 82 (0.0%) 50 (0.0%) 13 (0.0%) 11 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 108 Chemical Spray 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.0%) 2 (0.0%) 33 (0.0%) 76 (0.0%) 31 (0.0%) 19 (0.0%) 2 (0.0%) (0.0%) Other Physical of Vehicle 204 1,397 3,698 2,627 1,440 752 305 8 (0.6%) 42 (0.9%) Contact (0.6%) (0.3%) (0.4%) (0.4%) (0.3%) (0.3%) (0.3%) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 21 Action Taken 1-9 10-14 15-17 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 126 546 2,431 5,951 4,308 2,591 1,392 405 Person Photographed 12 (0.9%) (2.8%) (1.7%) (0.5%) (0.6%) (0.7%) (0.6%) (0.5%) (0.4%) Asked for Consent to 214 1,236 9,562 25,307 16,041 8,152 3,334 681 34 (2.5%) Search Person (4.8%) (3.8%) (1.9%) (2.6%) (2.5%) (1.9%) (1.3%) (0.7%) 1,483 8,217 55,696 127,662 72,712 36,090 15,850 3,763 Searched Person 131 (9.5%) (33.2%) (25.4%) (10.9%) (13.2%) (11.4%) (8.4%) (6.2%) (3.7%) Asked for Consent to 106 764 7,580 18,359 10,646 4,955 1,928 399 21 (1.5%) Search Property (2.4%) (2.4%) (1.5%) (1.9%) (1.7%) (1.2%) (0.8%) (0.4%) 497 3,364 27,983 64,227 34,629 16,018 6,369 1,394 Searched Property 93 (6.7%) (11.1%) (10.4%) (5.5%) (6.6%) (5.4%) (3.7%) (2.5%) (1.4%) 124 604 3,628 9,762 6,456 3,397 1,535 316 Property Seized 15 (1.1%) (2.8%) (1.9%) (0.7%) (1.0%) (1.0%) (0.8%) (0.6%) (0.3%) 840 9,961 16,565 9,150 4,526 2,258 629 Vehicle Impound 8 (0.6%) 44 (1.0%) (2.6%) (2.0%) (1.7%) (1.4%) (1.1%) (0.9%) (0.6%) Admission/Written 119 Statement Obtained from 0 (0.0%) 64 (1.4%) 7 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) (0.4%) Student 1,024 1,582 18,375 410,603 754,358 513,032 362,519 221,898 93,343 No Action Taken (74.1%) (35.4%) (56.9%) (80.7%) (78.0%) (80.4%) (84.3%) (87.3%) (91.4%) Search Person Consent 201 1,170 9,098 24,155 15,288 7,788 3,140 643 32 (94.1%) Given (93.9%) (94.7%) (95.1%) (95.4%) (95.3%) (95.5%) (94.2%) (94.4%) Search Property Consent 21 101 721 7,083 17,223 9,977 4,650 1,806 364 Given (100.0%) (95.3%) (94.4%) (93.4%) (93.8%) (93.7%) (93.8%) (93.7%) (91.2%) Notes. Percentages for the variables “Search Person Consent Given” and “Search Property Consent Given” are calculated based on the number of individuals officers asked for consent to search their person and individuals officers asked for consent to search their property from the given age group and not the total number of individuals stopped from the given age group. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 22 A.11 All Actions Taken During Stop by LGBT, Limited English Fluency, or Disability Group English Limited/No English Action Taken Non-LGBT LGBT No Disability Disability Fluent Fluency 93,095 109,227 Removed from Vehicle by Order 1,051 (6.2%) 6,003 (5.2%) 114,223 (3.9%) 1,007 (2.8%) (7.6%) (3.9%) Removed from Vehicle by Physical 7,081 (0.6%) 100 (0.6%) 7,415 (0.3%) 276 (0.2%) 7,524 (0.3%) 167 (0.5%) Contact 11,888 Field Sobriety Test 238 (1.4%) 52,328 (1.9%) 5,929 (5.1%) 57,699 (2.0%) 558 (1.6%) (1.0%) 187,427 3,067 191,445 Curbside Detention 8,887 (7.7%) 192,388 (6.6%) 7,943 (22.2%) (15.3%) (18.1%) (6.8%) 235,852 4,903 265,455 18,493 Handcuffed 14,523 (12.6%) 261,484 (9.0%) (19.3%) (29.0%) (9.4%) (51.8%) 124,836 2,448 127,251 Patrol Car Detention 5,531 (4.8%) 123,074 (4.2%) 9,707 (27.2%) (10.2%) (14.5%) (4.5%) Canine Search 1,109 (0.1%) 23 (0.1%) 1,975 (0.1%) 190 (0.2%) 2,129 (0.1%) 36 (0.1%) 1,2825 Firearm Point 187 (1.1%) 13,856 (0.5%) 688 (0.6%) 14,062 (0.5%) 482 (1.3%) (1.0%) Firearm Discharge 90 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 137 (0.0%) 9 (0.0%) 142 (0.0%) 4 (0.0%) Electronic Control Device 526 (0.0%) 12 (0.1%) 637 (0.0%) 26 (0.0%) 560 (0.0%) 103 (0.3%) Impact Projectile Discharge 272 (0.0%) 5 (0.0%) 289 (0.0%) 15 (0.0%) 253 (0.0%) 51 (0.1%) Canine Bite 142 (0.0%) 1 (0.0%) 171 (0.0%) 2 (0.0%) 165 (0.0%) 8 (0.0%) Baton 154 (0.0%) 3 (0.0%) 172 (0.0%) 6 (0.0%) 156 (0.0%) 22 (0.1%) Chemical Spray 238 (0.0%) 17 (0.1%) 266 (0.0%) 6 (0.0%) 241 (0.0%) 31 (0.1%) Other Physical of Vehicle Contact 9,355 (0.8%) 210 (1.2%) 10,098 (0.4%) 375 (0.3%) 9,414 (0.3%) 1,059 (3.0%) 14,911 Person Photographed 426 (2.5%) 16,752 (0.6%) 1,010 (0.9%) 16,774 (0.6%) 988 (2.8%) (1.2%) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 23 English Limited/No English Action Taken Non-LGBT LGBT No Disability Disability Fluent Fluency 6,2963 Asked for Consent to Search Person 1,028 (6.1%) 62,721 (2.2%) 1,841 (1.6%) 62,207 (2.1%) 2,355 (6.6%) (5.1%) 276,515 4,587 306,246 305,333 16,273 Searched Person 15,361 (13.3%) (22.6%) (27.1%) (10.9%) (10.5%) (45.6%) Asked for Consent to Search 43,099 675 (4.0%) 43,244 (1.5%) 1,514 (1.3%) 43,835 (1.5%) 923 (2.6%) Property (3.5%) 142,883 2,250 149,117 Searched Property 5,458 (4.7%) 149,977 (5.2%) 4,598 (12.9%) (11.7%) (13.3%) (5.3%) 23,016 Property Seized 457 (2.7%) 24,542 (0.9%) 1,296 (1.1%) 24,888 (0.9%) 950 (2.7%) (1.9%) 16,252 Vehicle Impound 232 (1.4%) 39,659 (1.4%) 4,322 (3.7%) 43,595 (1.5%) 386 (1.1%) (1.3%) Admission/Written Statement 189 (0.0%) 1 (0.0%) 180 (0.0%) 10 (0.0%) 181 (0.0%) 9 (0.0%) Obtained from Student 748,072 8,694 2,289,643 2,367,594 No Action Taken 87,093 (75.4%) 9,142 (25.6%) (61.1%) (51.3%) (81.1%) (81.6%) 60,078 59,746 Search Person Consent Given 970 (94.4%) 1,770 (96.1%) 59,313 (95.3%) 2,203 (93.5%) (95.4%) (95.3%) 40,565 40,499 Search Property Consent Given 635 (94.1%) 1,447 (95.6%) 41,096 (93.8%) 850 (92.1%) (94.1%) (93.7%) Notes. The CHP was excluded from the analysis of perceived LGBT due to a technical error in CHP’s data. Percentages for the variables “Search Person Consent Given” and “Search Property Consent Given” are calculated based on the number of individuals officers asked for consent to search and individuals officers asked for consent to search their property from the given identity group and not the total number of individuals stopped from the given identity group. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 24 A.12 Stops by Identity Group and Stop Result for Handcuffed Individuals Identity Group No Action Arrested Other Total Race/Ethnicity Asian 491 (7.7%) 3,851 (60.3%) 2,049 (32.1%) 6,391 (100.0%) Black 9,786 (13.2%) 37,492 (50.6%) 26,779 (36.2%) 74,057 (100.0%) Hispanic 12,141 (10.1%) 66,218 (54.9%) 42,280 (35.0%) 120,639 (100.0%) Middle Eastern/South Asian 394 (8.8%) 2,660 (59.2%) 1,443 (32.1%) 4,497 (100.0%) Multiracial 289 (10.4%) 1,540 (55.3%) 957 (34.4%) 2,786 (100.0%) Native American 46 (6.6%) 515 (73.7%) 138 (19.7%) 699 (100.0%) Pacific Islander 123 (9.0%) 866 (63.6%) 372 (27.3%) 1,361 (100.0%) White 6,935 (10.0%) 41,712 (60.0%) 20,901 (30.1%) 69,548 (100.0%) Gender (Cisgender) Female 4,460 (10.2%) 23,206 (53.3%) 15,867 (36.4%) 43,533 (100.0%) Gender Nonconforming 16 (9.0%) 96 (54.2%) 65 (36.7%) 177 (100.0%) (Cisgender) Male 25,493 (13.1%) 93,658 (48.0%) 76,011 (38.9%) 195,162 (100.0%) Transgender Man/Boy 130 (11.3%) 559 (48.5%) 463 (40.2%) 1,152 (100.0%) Transgender Woman/Girl 78 (10.7%) 400 (54.7%) 253 (34.6%) 731 (100.0%) Age Group 1-9 6 (8.2%) 30 (41.1%) 37 (50.7%) 73 (100.0%) 10-14 120 (8.4%) 442 (30.8%) 872 (60.8%) 1,434 (100.0%) 15-17 896 (12.4%) 2,588 (35.8%) 3,754 (51.9%) 7,238 (100.0%) 18-24 5,434 (11.6%) 23,609 (50.6%) 17,617 (37.8%) 46,660 (100.0%) 25-34 12,605 (11.6%) 59,639 (54.7%) 36,847 (33.8%) 109,091 (100.0%) 35-44 6,718 (10.4%) 37,401 (58.0%) 20,414 (31.6%) 64,533 (100.0%) 45-54 3,113 (9.5%) 19,623 (60.1%) 9,925 (30.4%) 32,661 (100.0%) 55-64 1,092 (7.4%) 9,402 (63.5%) 4,319 (29.2%) 14,813 (100.0%) 65+ 221 (6.4%) 2,119 (61.0%) 1,134 (32.6%) 3,474 (100.0%) LGBT Non-LGBT 29,718 (12.6%) 115,315 (48.9%) 90,819 (38.5%) 235,852 (100.0%) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 25 Identity Group No Action Arrested Other Total LGBT 459 (9.4%) 2,604 (53.1%) 1,840 (37.5%) 4,903 (100.0%) Limited English Fluency English Fluent 29,360 (11.1%) 144,868 (54.6%) 91,227 (34.4%) 265,455 (100.0%) Limited/No English Fluency 845 (5.8%) 9,986 (68.8%) 3,692 (25.4%) 14,523 (100.0%) Disability No Disability 29,195 (11.2%) 149,525 (57.2%) 82,764 (31.7%) 261,484 (100.0%) Disability 1,010 (5.5%) 5,328 (28.8%) 12,155 (65.7%) 18,493 (100.0%) Overall 30,205 (10.8%) 154,854 (55.3%) 94,919 (33.9%) 279,978 (100.0%) Note. Corrections to the total column counts were applied on 11/7/2023. Note. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) was excluded from the analysis of perceived gender and LGBT due to a technical error in CHP’s data. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 26 A.13 Stops by Identity Group and Stop Result Identity Group Warning Citation Arrest Total Race/Ethnicity Asian 37,785 (24.9%) 96,453 (63.5%) 11,371 (7.5%) 151,813 (100.0%) Black 141,166 (29.1%) 194,930 (40.2%) 62,872 (13.0%) 484,364 (100.0%) Hispanic 300,664 (25.3%) 648,824 (54.6%) 139,697 (11.8%) 1,187,727 (100.0%) Middle Eastern/South Asian 34,790 (25.4%) 92,195 (67.4%) 6,208 (4.5%) 136,806 (100.0%) Multiracial 7,501 (29.1%) 12,942 (50.2%) 2,988 (11.6%) 25,777 (100.0%) Native American 1,977 (32.4%) 2,697 (44.2%) 1,050 (17.2%) 6,105 (100.0%) Pacific Islander 3,936 (25.7%) 8,431 (55.1%) 1,759 (11.5%) 15,292 (100.0%) White 283,893 (30.5%) 491,284 (52.8%) 86,767 (9.3%) 929,776 (100.0%) Gender (Cisgender) Female 80,260 (24.0%) 127,412 (38.1%) 57,155 (17.1%) 334,056 (100.0%) Gender Nonconforming 198 (17.3%) 572 (50.0%) 160 (14.0%) 1,143 (100.0%) (Cisgender) Male 239,566 (26.6%) 259,693 (28.8%) 172,651 (19.2%) 901,149 (100.0%) Transgender Man/Boy 622 (19.6%) 595 (18.7%) 756 (23.8%) 3,175 (100.0%) Transgender Woman/Girl 307 (17.6%) 258 (14.8%) 504 (28.8%) 1,747 (100.0%) Age Group 1-9 268 (19.4%) 372 (26.9%) 108 (7.8%) 1,381 (100.0%) 10-14 639 (14.3%) 388 (8.7%) 730 (16.3%) 4,472 (100.0%) 15-17 6597 (20.4%) 12,562 (38.9%) 4,299 (13.3%) 32,304 (100.0%) 18-24 111,505 (21.9%) 302,690 (59.5%) 51,843 (10.2%) 508,662 (100.0%) 25-34 259,958 (26.9%) 498,278 (51.5%) 111,104 (11.5%) 966,822 (100.0%) 35-44 188,848 (29.6%) 320,503 (50.3%) 71,564 (11.2%) 637,762 (100.0%) 45-54 132,100 (30.7%) 221,132 (51.4%) 42,200 (9.8%) 429,894 (100.0%) 55-64 76,904 (30.3%) 137,395 (54.0%) 23,356 (9.2%) 254,220 (100.0%) 65+ 34,892 (34.2%) 54,436 (53.3%) 7,506 (7.3%) 102,139 (100.0%) LGBT LGBT 3,651 (21.6%) 3,456 (20.4%) 4,259 (25.2%) 16,932 (100.0%) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 27 Identity Group Warning Citation Arrest Total Non-LGBT 317,302 (25.9%) 385,074 (31.5%) 226,967 (18.5%) 1,224,339 (100.0%) Limited English Fluent 781,537 (27.7%) 1,488,144 (52.7%) 294,631 (10.4%) 2,822,202 (100.0%) English Limited/No English Fluency 30,175 (26.1%) 59,612 (51.6%) 18,081 (15.7%) 115,459 (100.0%) Fluency Disability Disability 4,915 (13.8%) 2,424 (6.8%) 6,768 (19.0%) 35,708 (100.0%) No Disability 806,797 (27.8%) 1,545,332 (53.3%) 305,943 (10.5%) 2,901,951 (100.0%) Overall 811,712 (27.6%) 1,547,756 (52.7%) 312,712 (10.6%) 2,937,662 (100.0%) Note. Corrections to the total column counts were applied on 11/7/2023. Note. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) was excluded from the analysis of perceived gender and LGBT due to a technical error in CHP’s data. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 28 A.14 Consent Inquiries and Search Rates Asked for Consent and Response Consent Response Search Rates Consent Not Race/Ethnicity Asked for Consent Not Consent Received Consent Received Received & Consent Received & Searched Searched Asian 1,630 (1.1%) 1,513 (92.8%) 117 (7.2%) 1,169 (77.3%) 68 (58.1%) Black 19,355 (4.0%) 18,192 (94.0%) 1,163 (6.0%) 13,968 (76.8%) 624 (53.7%) Hispanic 33,763 (2.8%) 32,278 (95.6%) 1,485 (4.4%) 25,045 (77.6%) 703 (47.3%) Middle Eastern/South Asian 896 (0.7%) 843 (94.1%) 53 (5.9%) 652 (77.3%) 33 (62.3%) Multiracial 1,069 (4.1%) 1,021 (95.5%) 48 (4.5%) 842 (82.5%) 31 (64.6%) Native American 135 (2.2%) 123 (91.1%) 12 (8.9%) 87 (70.7%) 4 (33.3%) Pacific Islander 325 (2.1%) 309 (95.1%) 16 (4.9%) 228 (73.8%) 7 (43.8%) White 21,861 (2.4%) 20,508 (93.8%) 1,353 (6.2%) 16,149 (78.7%) 741 (54.8%) Overall 79,034 (2.7%) 74,787 (94.6%) 4,247 (5.4%) 58,140 (77.7%) 2,211 (52.1%) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 29 A.15 Consent Search Rates Search Rates Consent Only Searches Consent Plus Searches Other Discretionary Searches Race/Ethnicity Proportion of Proportion of Proportion of Proportion of Proportion of Proportion of Stops Searches Stops Searches Stops Searches Asian 752 (0.5%) 752 (10.3%) 690 (0.5%) 690 (9.5%) 2,214 (1.5%) 2,214 (30.4%) Black 10,137 (2.1%) 10,137 (10.1%) 12,583 (2.6%) 12,583 (12.5%) 45,037 (9.3%) 45,037 (44.9%) Hispanic 18,799 (1.6%) 18,799 (12.7%) 19,383 (1.6%) 19,383 (13.1%) 50,941 (4.3%) 50,941 (34.3%) Middle Eastern/South Asian 408 (0.3%) 408 (8.6%) 495 (0.4%) 495 (10.4%) 1,330 (1.0%) 1,330 (27.9%) Multiracial 368 (1.4%) 368 (10.1%) 710 (2.8%) 710 (19.4%) 1,232 (4.8%) 1,232 (33.7%) Native American 60 (1.0%) 60 (7.7%) 52 (0.9%) 52 (6.7%) 197 (3.2%) 197 (25.4%) Pacific Islander 128 (0.8%) 128 (8.1%) 132 (0.9%) 132 (8.4%) 544 (3.6%) 544 (34.6%) White 9,057 (1.0%) 9,057 (11.1%) 10,100 (1.1%) 10,100 (12.4%) 26,573 (2.9%) 26,573 (32.6%) Overall 39,709 (1.4%) 39,709 (11.4%) 44,145 (1.5%) 44,145 (12.7%) 128,068 (4.4%) 128,068 (36.8%) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 30 A.16 Consent Search Discovery Rates Discovery Rates Race/Ethnicity Other Discretionary Consent Only Searches Consent Plus Basis Searches Asian 159 (21.1%) 237 (34.3%) 517 (23.4%) Black 866 (8.5%) 3,366 (26.8%) 10,368 (23.0%) Hispanic 2,122 (11.3%) 4,623 (23.9%) 11,101 (21.8%) Middle Eastern/South Asian 70 (17.2%) 126 (25.5%) 265 (19.9%) Multiracial 48 (13.0%) 149 (21.0%) 266 (21.6%) Native American 12 (20.0%) 13 (25.0%) 52 (26.4%) Pacific Islander 26 (20.3%) 35 (26.5%) 120 (22.1%) White 1,601 (17.7%) 2,808 (27.8%) 6,877 (25.9%) Overall 4,904 (12.3%) 11,357 (25.7%) 29,566 (23.1%) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 31 A.17 Reason for Stop for Consent Only Searches Education School Race/Ethnicity Traffic Consensual Supervision Suspicion Truancy Warrant/Wanted Code Policy 186 0 209 Asian 331 (44.0%) 0 (0.0%) 7 (0.9%) 8 (1.1%) 11 (1.5%) (24.7%) (0.0%) (27.8%) 6,725 1,195 0 2,023 54 Black 0 (0.0%) 86 (0.8%) 54 (0.5%) (66.3%) (11.8%) (0.0%) (20.0%) (0.5%) 11,000 3,185 0 4,212 112 Hispanic 0 (0.0%) 158 (0.8%) 132 (0.7%) (58.5%) (16.9%) (0.0%) (22.4%) (0.6%) Middle Eastern/South 0 132 207 (50.7%) 60 (14.7%) 0 (0.0%) 6 (1.5%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (0.7%) Asian (0.0%) (32.4%) 0 Multiracial 178 (48.4%) 89 (24.2%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.3%) 95 (25.8%) 1 (0.3%) 4 (1.1%) (0.0%) 0 Native American 19 (31.7%) 20 (33.3%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (3.3%) 16 (26.7%) 1 (1.7%) 2 (3.3%) (0.0%) 1 Pacific Islander 49 (38.3%) 34 (26.6%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.8%) 38 (29.7%) 2 (1.6%) 3 (2.3%) (0.8%) 2,678 3,072 0 2,968 106 White 0 (0.0%) 105 (1.2%) 128 (1.4%) (29.6%) (33.9%) (0.0%) (32.8%) (1.2%) 21,187 7,841 1 9,693 284 Overall 0 (0.0%) 366 (0.9%) 337 (0.8%) (53.4%) (19.7%) (0.0%) (24.4%) (0.7%) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 32 A.18 Reason for Stop for Consent Only Search by Search Type Search Type & Middle Eastern/ Native Pacific Asian Black Hispanic Multiracial White Overall Race/Ethnicity South Asian American Islander 61 1,619 3,217 6 14 723 5,747 Person 50 (24.2%) 57 (32.0%) (18.4%) (24.1%) (29.2%) (31.6%) (28.6%) (27.0%) (27.1%) Traffic 132 1,486 2,429 5 10 509 4,683 Property 63 (30.4%) 49 (27.5%) Violation (39.9%) (22.1%) (22.1%) (26.3%) (20.4%) (19.0%) (22.1%) Person & 138 3,620 5,354 72 8 25 1,446 10,757 94 (45.4%) Property (41.7%) (53.8%) (48.7%) (40.5%) (42.1%) (51.0%) (54.0%) (50.8%) 193 1,901 4,562 111 20 39 3,644 10,576 Person 106 (52.7%) (45.8%) (55.7%) (58.5%) (58.4%) (48.8%) (49.4%) (57.1%) (57.1%) Non- 60 530 824 3 11 699 2,182 Traffic Property 30 (14.9%) 25 (13.2%) (14.3%) (15.5%) (10.6%) (7.3%) (13.9%) (11.0%) (11.8%) Violation Person & 168 981 2,413 18 29 2,036 5,764 65 (32.3%) 54 (28.4%) Property (39.9%) (28.8%) (30.9%) (43.9%) (36.7%) (31.9%) (31.1%) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 33 A.19 Known Supervision Searches Search Rates Stopped for Stopped for Supervision Only Other Discretionary Known Supervision Plus Searches Race/Ethnicity Known Searches Searches Supervision Supervision and Searched Proportion Proportion Proportion Proportion Proportion Proportion of Stops of Searches of Stops of Searches of Stops of Searches 826 2,454 2,454 Asian 263 (0.2%) 195 (74.1%) 826 (0.5%) 298 (0.2%) 298 (4.1%) (11.3%) (1.6%) (33.7%) 17,309 17,309 9,774 9,774 41,267 41,267 Black 5,236 (1.1%) 4,241 (81.0%) (3.6%) (17.3%) (2.0%) (9.7%) (8.5%) (41.1%) 17,897 17,897 11,651 11,651 58,819 58,819 Hispanic 9,467 (0.8%) 7,387 (78.0%) (1.5%) (12.1%) (1.0%) (7.8%) (5.0%) (39.6%) Middle 1,572 1,572 Eastern/South 167 (0.1%) 126 (75.4%) 403 (0.3%) 403 (8.5%) 229 (0.2%) 229 (4.8%) (1.1%) (33.0%) Asian 479 430 1,362 1,362 Multiracial 271 (1.1%) 211 (77.9%) 479 (1.9%) 430 (1.7%) (13.1%) (11.8%) (5.3%) (37.3%) Native 87 178 178 56 (0.9%) 43 (76.8%) 87 (1.4%) 49 (0.8%) 49 (6.3%) American (11.2%) (2.9%) (23.0%) 242 471 471 Pacific Islander 99 (0.6%) 85 (85.9%) 242 (1.6%) 92 (0.6%) 92 (5.9%) (15.4%) (3.1%) (30.0%) 11,991 11,991 5,453 5,453 27,653 27,653 White 5,500 (0.6%) 4,070 (74.0%) (1.3%) (14.7%) (0.6%) (6.7%) (3.0%) (33.9%) 49,234 49,234 27,976 27,976 133,776 133,776 Overall 21,059 (0.7%) 16,358 (77.7%) (1.7%) (14.1%) (1.0%) (8.0%) (4.6%) (38.4%) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 34 A.20 Supervision Search Discovery Rates Discovery Rates Race/Ethnicity Supervision Only Searches Supervision Plus Searches Other Discretionary Searches Asian 210 (25.4%) 117 (39.3%) 555 (22.6%) Black 2,911 (16.8%) 3,044 (31.1%) 9,020 (21.9%) Hispanic 3,231 (18.1%) 3,168 (27.2%) 11,363 (19.3%) Middle Eastern/South Asian 86 (21.3%) 76 (33.2%) 296 (18.8%) Multiracial 106 (22.1%) 102 (23.7%) 254 (18.6%) Native American 24 (27.6%) 14 (28.6%) 42 (23.6%) Pacific Islander 59 (24.4%) 37 (40.2%) 88 (18.7%) White 3,380 (28.2%) 1,949 (35.7%) 5,870 (21.2%) Overall 10,007 (20.3%) 8,507 (30.4%) 27,488 (20.5%) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 35 A.21 Reason for Stop by Search Type Schoo Type of Race/Ethnicit Consens Educatio Supervisio Suspicio Truanc Warrant/Wante Traffic l Total Search y ual n Code n n y d Policy 0 826 394 45 153 211 3 Asian 0 (0.0%) (0.0% 20 (2.4%) (100.0% (47.7%) (5.4%) (18.5%) (25.5%) (0.4%) ) ) 0 17,309 10,069 614 2,643 3,673 64 Black 0 (0.0%) (0.0% 246 (1.4%) (100.0% (58.2%) (3.5%) (15.3%) (21.2%) (0.4%) ) ) 0 17,897 8,486 773 4,837 3,510 66 Hispanic 0 (0.0%) (0.0% 225 (1.3%) (100.0% (47.4%) (4.3%) (27.0%) (19.6%) (0.4%) ) ) Middle 0 403 207 14 76 99 3 Eastern/South 0 (0.0%) (0.0% 4 (1.0%) (100.0% Supervision (51.4%) (3.5%) (18.9%) (24.5%) (0.7%) Asian ) ) Only 0 479 Searches 224 18 106 121 1 Multiracial 0 (0.0%) (0.0% 9 (1.9%) (100.0% (46.8%) (3.8%) (22.1%) (25.3%) (0.2%) ) ) 0 87 22 8 28 26 0 Native American 0 (0.0%) (0.0% 3 (3.4%) (100.0% (25.3%) (9.2%) (32.2%) (29.9%) (0.0%) ) ) 0 242 87 13 63 67 2 Pacific Islander 0 (0.0%) (0.0% 10 (4.1%) (100.0% (36.0%) (5.4%) (26.0%) (27.7%) (0.8%) ) ) 0 11,991 3,611 877 2,840 4,405 64 White 0 (0.0%) (0.0% 194 (1.6%) (100.0% (30.1%) (7.3%) (23.7%) (36.7%) (0.5%) ) ) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 36 Schoo Type of Race/Ethnicit Consens Educatio Supervisio Suspicio Truanc Warrant/Wante Traffic l Total Search y ual n Code n n y d Policy 0 49,234 23,100 2,362 10,746 12,112 203 Overall 0 (0.0%) (0.0% 711 (1.4%) (100.0% (46.9%) (4.8%) (21.8%) (24.6%) (0.4%) ) ) 0 298 127 14 110 2 Asian 0 (0.0%) (0.0% 18 (6.0%) 27 (9.1%) (100.0% (42.6%) (4.7%) (36.9%) (0.7%) ) ) 0 9,774 4,751 265 1,184 3,193 37 Black 0 (0.0%) (0.0% 344 (3.5%) (100.0% (48.6%) (2.7%) (12.1%) (32.7%) (0.4%) ) ) 0 11,651 5,444 461 1,899 3,373 71 Hispanic 0 (0.0%) (0.0% 403 (3.5%) (100.0% (46.7%) (4.0%) (16.3%) (29.0%) (0.6%) ) ) Middle 0 229 93 13 36 72 0 Eastern/South 0 (0.0%) (0.0% 15 (6.6%) (100.0% Supervision (40.6%) (5.7%) (15.7%) (31.4%) (0.0%) Asian ) ) Plus 0 430 Searches 190 26 80 117 0 Multiracial 0 (0.0%) (0.0% 17 (4.0%) (100.0% (44.2%) (6.0%) (18.6%) (27.2%) (0.0%) ) ) 0 49 Native 19 5 9 10 1 0 (0.0%) (0.0% 5 (10.2%) (100.0% American (38.8%) (10.2%) (18.4%) (20.4%) (2.0%) ) ) 0 92 Pacific 39 4 11 33 0 0 (0.0%) (0.0% 5 (5.4%) (100.0% Islander (42.4%) (4.3%) (11.9%) (35.9%) (0.0%) ) ) 0 5,453 1,670 498 855 2,105 55 White 0 (0.0%) (0.0% 270 (5.0%) (100.0% (30.6%) (9.1%) (15.7%) (38.6%) (1.0%) ) ) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 37 Schoo Type of Race/Ethnicit Consens Educatio Supervisio Suspicio Truanc Warrant/Wante Traffic l Total Search y ual n Code n n y d Policy 0 27976 12333 1286 4092 9013 166 Overall 0 (0.0%) (0.0% 1086 (3.9%) (100.0% (44.1%) (4.6%) (14.6%) (32.2%) (0.6%) ) ) 1 2,454 731 358 1,288 37 Asian 0 (0.0%) (0.0% 10 (0.4%) 29 (1.2%) (100.0% (29.8%) (14.6%) (52.5%) (1.5%) ) ) 7 41,267 19,067 2,660 18,636 321 Black 0 (0.0%) (0.0% 255 (0.6%) 321 (0.8%) (100.0% (46.2%) (6.4%) (45.2%) (0.8%) ) ) 14 58,819 27,367 5,735 24,194 561 Hispanic 4 (0.0%) (0.0% 434 (0.7%) 510 (0.9%) (100.0% (46.5%) (9.8%) (41.1%) (1.0%) ) ) Middle 1 1,572 566 144 818 21 Eastern/South 0 (0.0%) (0.1% 7 (0.4%) 15 (1.0%) (100.0% Other (36.0%) (9.2%) (52.0%) (1.3%) Asian ) ) Discretionar 0 1,362 y Searches 545 177 598 17 Multiracial 0 (0.0%) (0.0% 14 (1.0%) 11 (0.8%) (100.0% (40.0%) (13.0%) (43.9%) (1.2%) ) ) 0 178 Native 50 37 80 5 0 (0.0%) (0.0% 3 (1.7%) 3 (1.7%) (100.0% American (28.1%) (20.8%) (44.9%) (2.8%) ) ) 1 471 Pacific 139 64 247 8 0 (0.0%) (0.2% 2 (0.4%) 10 (2.1%) (100.0% Islander (29.5%) (13.6%) (52.4%) (1.7%) ) ) 3 27,653 6,847 5,696 13,957 549 White 1 (0.0%) (0.0% 204 (0.7%) 396 (1.4%) (100.0% (24.8%) (20.6%) (50.5%) (2.0%) ) ) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 38 Schoo Type of Race/Ethnicit Consens Educatio Supervisio Suspicio Truanc Warrant/Wante Traffic l Total Search y ual n Code n n y d Policy 27 133,776 55,312 14,871 59,818 1,519 Overall 5 (0.0%) (0.0% 929 (0.7%) 1,295 (1.0%) (100.0% (41.4%) (11.1%) (44.7%) (1.1%) ) ) A.22 Search Rates by Gender Gender Count % Total Cisgender Female 49,342 14.8% 334,055 Cisgender Male 253,845 28.2% 901,149 Gender Nonconforming 229 20.0% 1,143 Transgender Man/Boy 1,275 40.2% 3,175 Transgender Woman/Girl 646 37.0% 1,746 Total 305,337 24.6% 1,241,268 Note. Due to an error found in the gender identity group data from the CHP, this analysis excludes data submitted by the CHP. There are three individuals who are missing information pertaining to the actions taken toward individuals during the stop. A.23 Search Discovery Rates by Gender Gender Count % Total Cisgender Female 11,168 22.6% 49,342 Cisgender Male 60,291 23.8% 253,843 Gender Nonconforming 49 21.4% 229 Transgender Man/Boy 223 17.5% 1,275 Transgender Woman/Girl 170 26.3% 646 Total 71,901 23.5% 305,335 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 39 Note. There are two males who were searched but are missing data on contraband or evidence discovered. There are three individuals who are missing information pertaining to the actions taken toward individuals during the stop. Due to an error with found in the gender identity group data from the CHP, this analysis excludes data submitted by the CHP. A.24 Use of Force Rates by Gender Gender Count % Total Cisgender Female 5,567 1.7% 334,055 Cisgender Male 23,962 2.7% 901,149 Gender Nonconforming 20 1.7% 1,143 Transgender Man/Boy 107 3.4% 3,175 Transgender Woman/Girl 56 3.2% 1,746 Total 29,712 2.4% 1,241,268 Note. There are three individuals who are missing information pertaining to the actions taken toward individuals during the stop. Due to an error found in the gender identity group data from the CHP, this analysis excludes data submitted by the CHP. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 40 A.25 Reason for Stop by Gender Cisgender Gender Transgender Transgender Gender Male Total Female Nonconforming Man/Boy Woman/Girl 244,257 597,599 769 1,410 608 844,643 Traffic Violation (73.1%) (66.3%) (67.3%) (44.4%) (34.8%) (68.0%) 76,576 250,297 322 1,542 1,043 329,780 Reasonable Suspicion (22.9%) (27.8%) (28.2%) (48.6%) (59.7%) (26.6%) Parole /Probation/PRCS/ 2,644 18,176 14 98 25 20,957 Mandatory Supervision (0.8%) (2.0%) (1.2%) (3.1%) (1.4%) (1.7%) Knowledge of Outstanding 3,631 12,133 6 62 28 15,860 Warrant/ Wanted Person (1.1%) (1.3%) (0.5%) (2.0%) (1.6%) (1.3%) Investigation to Determine 2,700 6,419 11 16 12 9,158 Whether Person was Truant (0.8%) (0.7%) (1.0%) (0.5%) (0.7%) (0.7%) Consensual Encounter Resulting 4,196 16,434 20 47 31 20,728 in a Search (1.3%) (1.8%) (1.7%) (1.5%) (1.8%) (1.7%) Possible Conduct Under 10 23 33 - - - Education Code (0.0%) (0.0%) (0.0%) Determine Whether Student 42 69 1 112 - - Violated School Policy (0.0%) (0.0%) (0.1%) (0.0%) Total 334,056 901,150 1,143 3,175 1,747 1,241,271 Note. Due to an error found in the gender identity group data from the CHP, this analysis excludes data submitted by the CHP. A.26 Reason for Stop Reasonable Suspicion Subfields by Gender Officer Engaging Match Witness/ Carry Suspect Witness Drug In a Gender Susp Victim Suspicious Casing Acting as Other Commiss Transaction Violent Descr Identific Weapon a Lookout Crime Crime Cisgender Female 37.1% 36.4% 16.5% 1.6% 0.9% 0.5% 0.9% 0.6% 22.5% Cisgender Male 34.7% 33.1% 17.2% 0.7% 0.5% 0.4% 0.7% 0.5% 26.7% Gender 32.2% 40.2% 22.0% 1.6% 0.3% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 21.0% Nonconforming Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 41 Transgender 30.7% 41.2% 24.3% 1.6% 0.1% 0.5% 0.8% 1.0% 24.1% Man/Boy Transgender 30.7% 48.4% 18.6% 3.4% 2.2% 3.7% 0.9% 1.6% 23.3% Woman/Girl Total 36.5% 35.6% 16.7% 1.4% 0.8% 0.4% 0.9% 0.6% 23.5% Note. Reasonable suspicion subcategory percentages were calculated based on the number of individuals who were stopped for reasonable suspicion (N = 205,493) per identity group (“Identity Group Total” column). Abbreviations for Reason for Stop left to right are: Officer Witness Commiss Crime= Officer Witness Commission of a Crime, Match Susp Descr= Matched Suspect Description, Witness/Victim Identific= Witness/Victim Identification. Due to an error found in the gender identity group data from the CHP, this analysis excludes data submitted by the CHP. A.27 Search Rates by Disability Disability Count % Total No Disability 331,291 11.4% 2,901,950 Mental Health Condition 13,843 55.1% 25,118 Other Disability 3,315 31.3% 10,589 348,449 11.9% 2,937,657 Total Note. There are three individuals who are missing information pertaining to the actions taken toward individuals during the stop A.28 Search Discovery Rates by Disability Disability Count % Total 75,626 22.8% 331,290 No Disability 1,704 12.3% 13,842 Mental Health Condition Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 42 710 21.4% 3,315 Other Disability 78,040 22.4% 348,447 Total Note. There are two individuals who were searched, but are missing information on the discovery of contraband or evidence. There are three individuals who are missing information pertaining to the actions taken toward individuals during the stop A.29 Use of Force Rates by Disability Disability Count % Total No Disability 30,807 1.1% 2,901,950 Mental Health Condition 1,388 5.5% 25,118 Other Disability 384 3.6% 10,589 32,579 1.1% 2,937,657 Total Note. There are three individuals who are missing information pertaining to the actions taken toward individuals during the stop. A.30 Reason for Stop subfield by Disability No Disability Mental Health Condition Other Disability Total Disability 990 (3.9%) 4,460 (42.1%) 2,528,066 (86.1%) Traffic Violation 2,522,616 (86.9%) 311,089 (10.7%) 21,495 (85.6%) 5,305 (50.1%) 337,889 (11.5%) Reasonable Suspicion 20,697 (0.7%) 230 (0.9%) 131 (1.2%) 21,058 (0.7%) Parole /Probation/PRCS/ Mandatory Supervision Knowledge of Outstanding Warrant/ Wanted 16,039 (0.6%) 369 (1.5%) 193 (1.8%) 16,601 (0.6%) Person Investigation to Determine Whether Person was 8,845 (0.3%) 661 (2.6%) 168 (1.6%) 9,674 (0.3%) Truant 22,540 (0.8%) 1,369 (5.5%) 317 (3.0%) 24,226 (0.8%) Consensual Encounter Resulting in a Search Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 43 31 (0.00%) 1 (0.00%) 1 (0.00%) 33 (0.0%) Possible Conduct Under Education Code 95 (0.00%) 4 (0.00%) 14 (0.1%) 113 (0.00%) Determine Whether Student Violated School Policy 2,901,952 25,119 10,589 2,937,660 Total A.31 Reason for Stop Reasonable Suspicion subfields by Disability Officer Match Carry Suspect Engaging Witness Witness/ Drug Susp Suspicious Acting as a In a Disability Commiss Victim Casing Transaction Other Descr Weapon Lookout Violent Crime Identific Crime 38.5% 34.7% 16.3% 1.4% 0.8% 0.5% 0.9% 0.7% 22.2% No Disability Mental Health 12.1% 42.8% 21.1% 1.2% 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.6% 43.0% Condition 25.9% 41.1% 21.4% 1.3% 0.6% 0.1% 0.7% 0.6% 29.3% Other Disability 36.6% 35.3% 16.7% 1.4% 0.8% 0.4% 0.9% 0.7% 23.6% Total Note. Reasonable suspicion subcategory percentages were calculated based on the number of individuals who were stopped for reasonable suspicion (N = 205,493) per identity group (“Identity Group Total” column). Abbreviations for Reason for Stop left to right are: Officer Witness Commiss Crime= Officer Witness Commission of a Crime, Match Susp Descr= Matched Suspect Description, Witness/Victim Identific= Witness/Victim Identification. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 44 APPENDIX B – TRAFFIC VIOLATION CODE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY B.1 Traffic Violation Vehicle Code Section Tables To capture the top five moving and non-moving/equipment violation codes officers reported under RIPA, we analyzed the top 30 codes for each violation type and collapsed similar codes together. The following table provides information for the codes collapsed together and the associated grouping name used for analysis. B.1.1 Vehicle Code Section Groupings Type of Grouping Name Offense Code Statute Statute Name Statute 54106 Vehicle Code 22350 UNSAFE SPEED:PREVAIL COND 54303 Vehicle Code 22349(A) EXCEED SPEED ON HIGHWAY 54134 Vehicle Code 22349 EXCESSIVE SPEED 54370 Vehicle Code 22356(B) EXCEED POSTED SPEED LIMIT 54395 Vehicle Code 22349(B) EXC 55MPH SPEED:2 LANE RD Speeding 54212 Vehicle Code 22348(B) DRIVE IN EXCESS 100 MPH 54371 Vehicle Code 22406(A) TRUCK/ETC EXCEED 55 MPH 54532 Vehicle Code 22405(A) UNSAFE SPEED ON BRIDGE 54374 Vehicle Code 22407 TRUK/ETC XCEED POSTED MPH 54616 Vehicle Code 22406(B) EXCESS SPEED WHILE TOWING 54098 Vehicle Code 21453(A) FAIL STOP LINE/ETC AT RED 54373 Vehicle Code 21453(C) FAIL STOP LINE/ETC AT RED Failure to Stop at Limit Line 54167 Vehicle Code 22450(A) FAIL STOP VEH:XWALK/ETC 54398 Vehicle Code 21950(A) FAIL YIELD TO PED:XWALKS 54122 Vehicle Code 21457(A) FAIL STOP:FLASH RED LIGHT 54655 Vehicle Code 23123.5(A) NO HND HLD DEVICE W/DRIVE Cellphone Violation 54566 Vehicle Code 23123(A) USE CELLPH W/DRIV W/O HFD 54445 Vehicle Code 21651(A) DIV HWY:CROSS/U TURN VIOL Unsafe Lane change/Turn 54422 Vehicle Code 22348(C) SPEC VEH:WRONG PASS LANE 54115 Vehicle Code 22107 UNSAF TURN &/OR NO SIGNAL Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 45 54178 Vehicle Code 21658(A) UNSAFE LANE CHANGE/ETC 54181 Vehicle Code 21755 USE SHOLDER/ETC:PAS RIGHT 54186 Vehicle Code 22102 ILEGAL UTURN:BUS DIST/ETC 54220 Vehicle Code 22100(A) IMPROPER RIGHT HAND TURN 54372 Vehicle Code 21453(B) TURN ONTO ONEWAY AT RED 54114 Vehicle Code 21801(A) FT/YIELD BE4 LEFT/U-TURN 54319 Vehicle Code 22100(B) LEFT TURN INTERSECTN VIOL 54185 Vehicle Code 22101(D) FAIL TO OBEY TURN SIGNS Failure to Obey Traffic Sign 54146 Vehicle Code 21461(A) DRIVER FAIL OBEY SIGN/ETC 54504 Vehicle Code 21655.5(B) FAIL OBEY TRAF LANE SIGN 54657 Vehicle Code 4000(A)(1) NO REG:VEH/TRAILER/ETC No Registration 54099 Vehicle Code 4000(A) NO REG:VEH/TRAILER/ETC 54473 Vehicle Code 4000.4(A) UNREG CA BASED VEHICLE 54644 Vehicle Code 5200(A) DISPLAY LIC PLATES WRONG 54168 Vehicle Code 5204(A) EXPIRED TABS/FAIL DISPLAY 54211 Vehicle Code 5202 LICENSE PLATE DISPLAY VIO Display Plates/Tags 54645 Vehicle Code 5200(B) DISPLY ONE LIC PLATE WRNG 54234 Vehicle Code 5201(A) LICENS PLATE POSITION VIO 54723 Vehicle Code 5201(D) OBSTRUCT OF LIC PLATE 54109 Vehicle Code 24252(A) FAIL MAINT VEH LITE EQUIP 54193 Vehicle Code 24600 TAILLAMP VIOLATIONS 54110 Vehicle Code 24601 FAIL MAINT LIC PLATE LAMP Failure to Maintain Lighting 54014 Vehicle Code 24400 HEADLAMP:OPR/AMT/SIZE:VIO Equipment 54480 Vehicle Code 38335 HEADLAMP VIOLATION 54144 Vehicle Code 24603(B) STOPLAMPS VIOL:SPEC VEH 54194 Vehicle Code 24603 STOPLAMP VIOLATIONS 54571 Vehicle Code 26708(A)(1) OPR VEH:WINDOW OBSTRUCTED 54614 Vehicle Code 26708(A)(2) OPR VEH:WINDOW OBSTRUCTED Window Obstruction 54015 Vehicle Code 26709 WINDOW INSTAL/ETC MAT VIO 54138 Vehicle Code 26710 DEFECTIVE WINDSHIELD/ETC Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 46 54358 Vehicle Code 34506 FT/COMPLY:INSPEC RULE/REG Failure to Comply with Commercial 54120 Vehicle Code 2813 FAIL STOP:COMRCL VEH INSP Vehicle Rule 54127 Vehicle Code 35551(A) VEH EXCEED WT LIMIT:2+AXL 65002 AA 65002 LOCAL ORDINANCE VIOL Local Ordinance Violation 65000 AA 65000 LOCAL ORDINANCE VIOL Bike Light Violation 54141 Vehicle Code 21201(D) BIKE HEADLIGHT/ETC VIOL 54537 Vehicle Code 22500(H) PARK UNLAW:DOUBLE PARKING Parking Violation 54330 Vehicle Code 22500 PARKING/ETC VIO:SPEC CIRC 54663 Vehicle Code 22500 NO PARK/STOP ETC FIRE LN B.1.2 Top Five Vehicle Code Sections Reported for Moving Violations (All Agencies) The following table provides information for the top five Vehicle Code sections reported for moving violations across all agencies. Type of Frequency Grouping Name Offense Code Statute Statute Name Statute (%) 253,490 54106 Vehicle Code 22350 UNSAFE SPEED:PREVAIL COND (13.7%) 335,746 54303 Vehicle Code 22349(A) EXCEED SPEED ON HIGHWAY (18.1%) 238,634 54134 Vehicle Code 22349 EXCESSIVE SPEED (12.9%) 93,848 54370 Vehicle Code 22356(B) EXCEED POSTED SPEED LIMIT (5.1%) Speeding 87,284 54395 Vehicle Code 22349(B) EXC 55MPH SPEED:2 LANE RD (4.7%) 36,523 54212 Vehicle Code 22348(B) DRIVE IN EXCESS 100 MPH (2.0%) 29,156 54371 Vehicle Code 22406(A) TRUCK/ETC EXCEED 55 MPH (1.6%) 1,074,681 Overall (58.1%) 34,622 Failure to Stop at Limit Line 54098 Vehicle Code 21453(A) FAIL STOP LINE/ETC AT RED (1.9%) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 47 85,004 54167 Vehicle Code 22450(A) FAIL STOP VEH:XWALK/ETC (4.6%) 119,626 Overall (6.5%) 10,739 54445 Vehicle Code 21651(A) DIV HWY:CROSS/U TURN VIOL (0.6%) 13,910 54422 Vehicle Code 22348(C) SPEC VEH:WRONG PASS LANE (0.8%) 44,901 Unsafe Lane change/Turn 54115 Vehicle Code 22107 UNSAF TURN &/OR NO SIGNAL (2.4%) 45,695 54178 Vehicle Code 21658(A) UNSAFE LANE CHANGE/ETC (2.5%) 115,245 Overall (6.2 %) 47,996 54655 Vehicle Code 23123.5(A) NO HND HLD DEVICE W/DRIVE (2.6%) 29,578 Cellphone Violation 54566 Vehicle Code 23123(A) USE CELLPH W/DRIV W/O HFD (1.6%) 77,574 Overall (4.2%) 18,341 54185 Vehicle Code 22101(D) FAIL TO OBEY TURN SIGNS (1.0%) 54146 Vehicle Code 21461(A) DRIVER FAIL OBEY SIGN/ETC 37,898 (2.1%) Failure to Obey Traffic Sign 12,076 54504 Vehicle Code 21655.5(B) FAIL OBEY TRAF LANE SIGN (0.7%) 68,315 Overall (3.7%) B.1.3 Top Five Vehicle Code Sections Reported for Non-Moving/Equipment Violations (All Agencies) The following table provides information for the top five Vehicle Code sections reported for non-moving/equipment violations across all agencies. Type of Frequency Grouping Name Offense Code Statute Statute Name Statute (%) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 48 113,829 54657 Vehicle Code 4000(A)(1) NO REG:VEH/TRAILER/ETC (16.8%) 48,140 No Registration 54099 Vehicle Code 4000(A) NO REG:VEH/TRAILER/ETC (7.1%) 161,969 Overall (23.9%) 86,803 54644 Vehicle Code 5200(A) DISPLAY LIC PLATES WRONG (12.8%) 29,647 54168 Vehicle Code 5204(A) EXPIRED TABS/FAIL DISPLAY (4.4%) 7,237 54211 Vehicle Code 5202 LICENSE PLATE DISPLAY VIO (1.1%) Display Plates/Tags 3,816 54645 Vehicle Code 5200(B) DISPLY ONE LIC PLATE WRNG (0.6%) 2,856 54234 Vehicle Code 5201(A) LICENS PLATE POSITION VIO (0.4%) 130,359 Overall (19.2%) 39,864 54109 Vehicle Code 24252(A) FAIL MAINT VEH LITE EQUIP (5.9%) 8,467 54193 Vehicle Code 24600 TAILLAMP VIOLATIONS (1.3%) Failure to Maintain Lighting 8,172 54110 Vehicle Code 24601 FAIL MAINT LIC PLATE LAMP Equipment (1.2%) 6,269 54014 Vehicle Code 24400 HEADLAMP:OPR/AMT/SIZE:VIO (0.9%) 62,772 Overall (9.3%) 48,710 54571 Vehicle Code 26708(A)(1) OPR VEH:WINDOW OBSTRUCTED (7.2%) 2,798 Window Obstruction 54614 Vehicle Code 26708(A)(2) OPR VEH:WINDOW OBSTRUCTED (0.4%) 4,262 54138 Vehicle Code 26710 DEFECTIVE WINDSHIELD/ETC (0.6%) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 49 55,770 Overall (8.2%) 27,661 54655 Vehicle Code 23123.5(A) NO HND HLD DEVICE W/DRIVE (4.1%) 14,063 Cellphone Violation 54566 Vehicle Code 23123(A) USE CELLPH W/DRIV W/O HFD (2.1%) 41,724 Overall (6.2%) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 50 APPENDIX C – DISPARITY TEST METHODS C.1 Residential Population Comparison Analysis Methodology Considerations and limitations. There are a number of known limitations associated with using residential data to benchmark stop data. Residential population is a proxy for the set of people who may be stopped by officers. However, individuals may be stopped outside of their residential area (e.g. commuting to work, tourists). The rate of these “commuter” stops likely varies from agency to agency, but RIPA stop data do not include information on where stopped individuals reside to account for this issue. Additionally, agencies may concentrate their patrol efforts in certain areas and, thus, may not have an equal likelihood of encountering residents throughout all areas in their jurisdiction. There are also concerns with response bias in compiling information derived from residential surveys, such as the census; some groups are more difficult to count, and thus may be underestimated in official data. In addition to general concerns with residential population benchmarking, there are also several limitations that are unique to comparing RIPA Stop Data to American Community Survey (ACS) data. First, 2020 ACS data were not available through Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) at the time this report was written.1 The 2020 RIPA Stop Data demographics were instead compared to the 2019 ACS demographics. Moreover, RIPA Stop Data regulations and the ACS categorize racial/ethnic groups differently.2 ACS data have racial/ethnic groups that are not explicitly captured by RIPA regulations. These individuals within the ACS have been collectively grouped together in an “Other” category that does not have a match in RIPA regulations. Finally, the source of race/ethnicity information for each dataset is collected differently. Race/ethnicity is recorded for RIPA based on officer’s perception while ACS respondents self- identify. This distinction represents a key difference in objectives between the two databases. The purpose of RIPA is to eliminate racial and identity profiling, a practice that is based on how officers perceive the individuals they stop. RIPA data are intended to facilitate the implementation of policies that will achieve this purpose. On the other hand, the objective of the ACS is to provide a representation of information regarding community residents. Thus, comparisons between these datasets operate under the assumption that officers’ perceptions often agree with how an individual self identifies. Statistical Analysis. Stop demographics for each police or sheriff’s department were compared to their primary city or county of service, respectively. 3 For example, the racial/ethnic distribution of individuals stopped by San Francisco Police Department was compared to the racial/ethnic distribution of San Francisco city residents in the ACS data. There are two exceptions, the first being for California Highway Patrol, which was compared to the state population. Second, the Los Angeles United School District Police Department was not included 1 For information about IPUMS, please visit <https://www.ipums.org/> [as of Dec. 2, 2021]. 2 For example, RIPA regulations explicitly include Israeli individuals in the Middle Eastern/South Asian group, but the ACS does not have an Israeli category. 3 These comparisons are approximate since agency jurisdictions do not always map perfectly to the boundaries of their primary city or county of service. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 51 in the residential comparison analysis since their agency’s jurisdiction is not as clearly defined as the jurisdiction of municipal police departments. In previous RIPA reports, one year estimates captured in the ACS data were used for residential comparisons. However, one year estimates only provide data for populations of 65,000 or more. As smaller agencies have begun submitting RIPA data, it was necessary to start using the five year ACS estimates in order to capture residential population data for these areas. Five year ACS estimates provide population data for all areas, no matter the size of the population served. However, unlike the one year estimates, the five year ACS estimates do not provide racial and ethnicity categorizations that are specific enough to create a comparable grouping to serve as a benchmark for the Middle Eastern/South Asian racial/ethnic group captured in RIPA. The following table provides information for the racial/ethnic categories used from the ACS data and the associated RIPA racial/ethnic group for which comparisons were made against. C.1.1 Census Table B03002 ACS RIPA Racial/Ethnic Variable ACS Variable Label Comparison Group Name B03002_003 Not Hispanic or Latino: White alone White B03002_004 Not Hispanic or Latino :Black or African Black American alone B03002_005 Not Hispanic or Latino: American Indian and Native American Alaska Native alone B03002_006 Not Hispanic or Latino: Asian alone Asian B03002_007 Not Hispanic or Latino: Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander Other Pacific Islander alone B03002_008 Not Hispanic or Latino: Some other race alone N/A Multiracial B03002_009 Not Hispanic or Latino: Two or more races Multiracial B03002_019 Hispanic or Latino: Two or more races Hispanic/Latino B03002_013 Hispanic or Latino: White alone B03002_014 Hispanic or Latino: Black or African American alone B03002_015 Hispanic or Latino: American Indian and Alaska Native alone Hispanic/Latino B03002_016 Hispanic or Latino: Asian alone B03002_017 Hispanic or Latino: Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone B03002_018 Hispanic or Latino: Some other race alone Benchmarking using residential population data involves comparing the distribution of racial/ethnic groups stopped by law enforcement to the distribution of residents in the areas serviced by agencies who submitted data in 2020. However, it is important to note that not all jurisdictions within the state collected RIPA data in 2020. Given that RIPA data were only collected in some areas of the state in 2020, presenting the overall state residential population as a benchmark would include far more people in the comparison distribution than were likely to Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 52 have contact with the 18 agencies that collected data in 2020. To help address this issue by creating a comparison distribution intended to be more reflective of just the areas served by the agencies that collected RIPA data in 2020, the overall ACS benchmark was calculated using a series of weights. First, the distribution of racial/ethnic groups within each agency’s approximate jurisdiction were calculated using each group’s mean proportion weighted by the person-weight variable reported in the ACS. These values were then multiplied by the number of stop records submitted by the respective agency (i.e. agency weights) and each racial/ethnic group’s values from all agencies were summed together.4 Each racial/ethnic group’s aggregate was then divided by the sum of all racial/ethnic aggregates in order to generate the final residential population benchmark for the overall comparisons. C.2 Analysis Methodology Considerations and limitations. Discovery rate analyses avoid some of the issues associated with other methods because they do not require the stop data to be compared to external information (e.g. residential population data). However, discovery rate analyses also rely on assumptions about the behavior of individuals in different identity groups. Disparate treatment between racial/ethnic groups is identified when search and discovery rates are opposed (e.g. Black individuals have high search rates but low discovery rates).5 When these statistics do not move in opposite directions, it is more difficult to determine whether disparate treatment is present. It is also possible that there are observable factors that could influence an officer’s decision to search someone that are not captured by RIPA Stop Data. The effectiveness in predicting the presence of contraband based on certain suspicious behaviors may also vary between racial/ethnic groups.6 Finally, the strength of the assumptions for discovery rate analyses may vary depending on the type of search being conducted. For example, consent searches include all searches where the only basis included was consent given. Thus, these searches do not include an element of probable cause, which may impact the assumptions underlying their analysis and results. Statistical Analysis. The discovery rate analysis was conducted in three steps. First, linear probability models were used to test whether there were differences in search rates between White individuals and each racial/ethnic group of color independently. Second, similar analyses were used to test for differences in contraband or evidence discovery rates during stops with discretionary searches. Discretionary searches exclude those where at least one of the search bases was either incident to arrest, search warrant, or vehicle inventory. Third, similar analyses were used to test for differences in contraband or evidence discovery rates during stops with administrative searches. Administrative searches only include those where at least one of the search bases was either incident to arrest, search warrant, or vehicle inventory. Each of these 4 The agency-level comparisons in Table D.1 of Appendix D do not employ weights to account for the number of stop records submitted by each agency, given that these comparisons examine the data of each agency separately. 5 See Anwar and Fang, An Alternative Test of Racial Prejudice in Motor Vehicle Searches: Theory and Evidence (2006) Am. Econ. Rev. 96(1) <https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/000282806776157579>. 6 See Simoui et al., The Problem of Infra-Marginality in Outcome Tests for Discrimination (2017) Ann. Appl. Stat. 11(3) <https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.05376.> Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 53 analyses were applied to all agencies combined, all municipal agencies combined (excluding California Highway Patrol), and for each individual agency.7 Both sets of analyses included the following considerations: 1. The 4 racial/ethnic groups who were stopped least frequently were aggregated into a single category to increase statistical power. These groups include Middle Eastern/South Asian, Multiracial, Native American, and Pacific Islander individuals. 2. A set of high dimensional fixed effects were included in the analysis as controls, including gender, age, hour of the day, day of the week, month of the year, and the officer conducting the stop. 3. The standard errors were clustered at the officer level to better allow for unobserved correlations between stops made by the same officers. Using these criteria, we estimated the effect of an individual (i) belonging to a racial/ethnic group of color (m) on a resulting binary search or contraband/evidence discovery outcome (j) with the aforementioned controls (…) using the following specification: + … Given the Board’s interest in furth𝑂𝑂e𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂ri𝑂𝑂n𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂g𝑂𝑂 i𝑂𝑂t𝑂𝑂s𝑂𝑂 𝑂𝑂u𝑂𝑂n𝑂𝑂d𝑂𝑂 𝑗𝑗e𝑗𝑗,𝑖𝑖 r=s t𝛽𝛽a𝛽𝛽n𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗,0d +in 𝛽𝛽g𝛽𝛽 𝑗𝑗 𝑗𝑗,o1 𝑂𝑂f𝑂𝑂 𝑖𝑖s𝑖𝑖 tops involving supervision searches and the impact of an individual’s perceived race/ethnicity, the discovery rate analysis was also repeated for stops in which a search was conducted as a condition of supervision. 7 Los Angeles United School District and Fresno PD’s discovery rates for discretionary and administrative searches were not able to be analyzed individually due to insufficient sample sizes for inclusion in the model. The Department is currently discussing future approaches that aggregate these agencies’ stop data over several years to provide sufficient sample sizes for analysis. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 54 C.3 Veil of Darkness (VOD) Analysis Methodology Considerations and limitations. As with any statistical approach, VOD is dependent upon a series of assumptions. The foremost assumption is that darkness should make it more difficult for police to perceive the race/ethnicity of individuals before they stop them. While this assumption is likely to hold true generally, it may not equally apply to all stops. For example, artificial lighting (e.g. streetlights) can help officers perceive race/ethnicity in the dark and it varies from one patrol area to the next. The types of violations that officers witness may also vary with visibility, as would be the case for having a headlight out. The propensity to commit these types of violations may be best explained by economic or other concerns (e.g. seasonality) that—depending on the area—may correlate with race/ethnicity.8 But even while race/ethnicity may be more difficult to perceive in the dark, officers could still use observable proxies (e.g. vehicle type, stop location) to guess the identity of drivers before stopping them. These concerns may cause drivers of some identity groups to change their own driving behavior to mitigate their perceived risk of being profiled and stopped.9 Finally, VOD is also an analysis best fit for vehicle stop data as identity is less likely to be masked during pedestrian stops in intertwilight hours, but RIPA does not explicitly differentiate vehicle stops from pedestrian stops; the best proxy in RIPA data is all stops made for traffic violations. Data collection. VOD relies on precise measures of the intertwilight period, which vary from location to location. Officers record location information using open text fields. These text fields were submitted to the Google Geolocation API to return the corresponding latitude and longitude. Given the unstructured nature of the open text fields, the API sometimes returned several potential coordinate matches for one record, including some coordinates that fell outside the state of California. For these records, their coordinates were instead replaced with those of their respective geographical areas (e.g. cities, unincorporated areas). Once geolocation data had been generated for all records, the data were analyzed using the suncalc package in R to calculate the following time values for each stop record: • Sunrise • Sunset • Daily beginning civil twilight • Daily end of civil twilight • Earliest instance of morning civil twilight across the entire year • Latest instance of morning civil twilight across the entire year • Earliest instance of evening civil twilight across the entire year • Latest instance of evening civil twilight across the entire year 8 See Ritter, How do Police Use Race in Traffic Stops and Searches? Tests Based on Observability of Race (2017) J Econ. Behav. & Org. 135 <https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v135y2017icp82-98.html>. 9 See Kalinowski and Ross et al., Endogenous Driving behavior in Veil of Darkness Tests for Racial Profiling (2017) Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Global Working Group <https://hceconomics.uchicago.edu/research/working-paper/endogenous-driving-behavior-tests-racial- profiling-police-traffic-stops>. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 55 Statistical analysis. The VOD was analyzed using linear probability models to test whether darkness (i.e. absence of daylight) impacted the race/ethnicity of individuals who were stopped by law enforcement. The analysis included the following considerations: 1. Stops were limited to those occurring within either the morning or evening intertwilight periods. These periods were generated for each stop record using each respective location’s earliest and latest times of civil twilight across the year. 2. Stops made between the start of civil twilight and sunrise were excluded from the morning intertwilight period while stops between sunset and the end of civil twilight were excluded from the evening intertwilight period. These short windows of time represent neither daylight nor nighttime and were removed to improve the contrast in lighting conditions between the light and dark stop groups. 3. Stops made after sunrise or before sunset were considered daylight stops while those made during nautical twilight were defined as occurring after dark. 4. Stops were limited to those made for traffic violations and those that were not initiated in response to a call for service. These criteria work to define stops that best fit the assumptions of the VOD hypothesis, which is based on officer discretion in initiating stops with motorists. 5. The 4 racial/ethnic groups who were stopped least frequently were aggregated into a single category to increase statistical power. These groups include Middle Eastern/South Asian, Multiracial, Native American, and Pacific Islander individuals. 6. A set of high dimensional fixed effects were added to the analysis as controls, including time of the day, day of the week, month of the year, and the officer conducting the stop. Times were grouped into 15-minute intervals that began with the start of each intertwilight period (e.g. morning, evening). 7. The standard errors were clustered at the officer level to account for unobserved correlations between stops made by the same officers. We estimated the effect of an individual (i) being stopped in darkness (d) on their likelihood of belonging to a racial/ethnic group of color (m) with the aforementioned controls (…) using the following specification: 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚,𝑖𝑖 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚,0 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚,1 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 Each racial/ethnic group of c𝑅𝑅o𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅l𝑅𝑅o𝑂𝑂r𝑂𝑂 𝑂𝑂w𝑂𝑂/𝐸𝐸a𝐸𝐸s𝑂𝑂 𝑂𝑂iℎn𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛d𝑛𝑛e𝑛𝑛𝑂𝑂p𝑂𝑂e𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛n𝑂𝑂d𝑂𝑂𝑛𝑛e𝑛𝑛ntly= c𝛽𝛽𝛽𝛽omp+a 𝛽𝛽r𝛽𝛽ed 𝑑𝑑t𝑑𝑑o +W ⋯h ite individuals. Thus, an analysis comparing White to Black individuals, for example, would only include data for these two groups. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 56 C.4 Use of Force Analysis Methodology Considerations and limitations. This analysis tests for equality of outcomes in the rates of force used during stops. Please note that RIPA does not contain variables that may help explain the context surrounding the decisions to use force. Thus, it is impossible to tell from the data why force was used; the data can only be used to show when force was used. Statistical Analysis. Logistic regressions were used to test whether there were differences in use of force rates between White individuals and each racial/ethnic group of color independently. A stop was considered to include force when at least one of the following actions were taken by officers: • Removal from vehicle by physical contact • Other physical or vehicle contact • Electronic control devices • Impact projectiles (e.g. rubber bullets) • Canine bites and holds • Baton or other impact weapon • Firearm pointed at person • Chemical spray • Discharge of a firearm These analyses were applied to all agencies combined, all municipal agencies combined (excluding California Highway Patrol), and for each individual agency.10 Both sets of analyses included the following considerations: 1. Only records where actions were taken during stop—regardless of whether they involved force—were included in the analysis. 2. The 4 racial/ethnic groups who were stopped least frequently were aggregated into a single category to increase statistical power. These groups include Middle Eastern/South Asian, Multiracial, Native American, and Pacific Islander individuals. 3. A set of high dimensional fixed effects were included in the analysis as controls, including gender, age, hour of the day, day of the week, month of the year, and the officer conducting the stop. 4. The standard errors were clustered at the officer level to account for unobserved correlations between stops made by the same officers. 10 The Los Angeles United School District PD and Fresno PD’s stops involving use of force were not able to be analyzed individually due to insufficient sample sizes for inclusion in the model. The Department is currently discussing future approaches that aggregate these agencies stop data over several years that would provide sufficient sample sizes for analysis. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 57 Using these criteria, we estimated the effect of an individual (i) belonging to a racial/ethnic group of color (m) on a resulting binary use of force outcome (j) with the aforementioned controls (…) using the following specification: + … 𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗,𝑖𝑖 𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗,0 𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗,1 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 = 𝛽𝛽𝛽𝛽 + 𝛽𝛽𝛽𝛽 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 58 APPENDIX D – DISPARITY TEST TABLES D.1 Residential Population Comparison Tables D.1.1 Residential Population Comparison to All Stops RIPA Stop Distribution Compared to Weighted Population Distribution by Race/Ethnicity A B C D E F Equation A-B C/B*100 A/B E(m)/E(w)* Absolute Relative RIPA ACS Disparity Ratio of Agency Race/Ethnicity % % 2020 2019 Index Disparity Difference Difference Asian 5.17% 13.98% -8.81% -63.02% 0.37 0.41 Black 16.49% 6.56% 9.93% 151.52% 2.52 2.79 Hispanic 40.42% 38.6% 1.82% 4.71% 1.05 1.16 Middle Eastern/South 4.66% Asian Overall Multiracial 0.88% 4.77% -3.89% -81.6% 0.18 0.2 Native American 0.21% 0.31% -0.1% -32.3% 0.68 0.75 Other 0.28% Pacific Islander 0.52% 0.35% 0.17% 50.41% 1.5 1.67 White 31.66% 35.16% -3.51% -9.97% 0.9 Asian 4.21% 13.56% -9.35% -68.92% 0.31 0.37 Black 23.06% 7.97% 15.09% 189.37% 2.89 3.42 Hispanic 40.53% 40.59% -0.07% -0.16% 1 1.18 Middle Eastern/South 3.14% Municipal Asian Multiracial 0.98% 4.59% -3.62% -78.73% 0.21 0.25 Native American 0.17% 0.24% -0.07% -28.37% 0.72 0.85 Other 0.31% Pacific Islander 0.47% 0.33% 0.14% 43.61% 1.44 1.7 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 59 RIPA Stop Distribution Compared to Weighted Population Distribution by Race/Ethnicity A B C D E F Equation A-B C/B*100 A/B E(m)/E(w)* Absolute Relative RIPA ACS Disparity Ratio of Agency Race/Ethnicity % % 2020 2019 Index Disparity Difference Difference White 27.44% 32.41% -4.97% -15.33% 0.85 Asian 1.36% 7.29% -5.92% -81.29% 0.19 0.17 Black 16.74% 7.23% 9.5% 131.4% 2.31 2.14 Hispanic 43.94% 48.57% -4.63% -9.54% 0.9 0.84 Middle Eastern/South 2.02% Asian Bakersfield PD Multiracial 0.44% 3.78% -3.33% -88.25% 0.12 0.11 Native American 0.11% 0.25% -0.15% -57.77% 0.42 0.39 Other 0.17% Pacific Islander 0.17% 0.19% -0.01% -7.76% 0.92 0.85 White 35.22% 32.52% 2.7% 8.3% 1.08 Asian 5.87% 14.28% -8.42% -58.92% 0.41 0.44 Black 11.68% 5.52% 6.16% 111.57% 2.12 2.26 Hispanic 40.34% 37.15% 3.19% 8.6% 1.09 1.16 Middle Eastern/South 5.77% California Asian Highway Patrol Multiracial 0.8% 4.89% -4.09% -83.57% 0.16 0.18 Native American 0.24% 0.36% -0.12% -34.19% 0.66 0.7 Other 0.25% Pacific Islander 0.56% 0.36% 0.2% 54.98% 1.55 1.66 White 34.74% 37.18% -2.44% -6.55% 0.93 Asian 9.27% 22.68% -13.41% -59.13% 0.41 0.46 Davis PD Black 11.54% 2.07% 9.47% 457.03% 5.57 6.25 Hispanic 22.55% 12.26% 10.3% 84.01% 1.84 2.06 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 60 RIPA Stop Distribution Compared to Weighted Population Distribution by Race/Ethnicity A B C D E F Equation A-B C/B*100 A/B E(m)/E(w)* Absolute Relative RIPA ACS Disparity Ratio of Agency Race/Ethnicity % % 2020 2019 Index Disparity Difference Difference Middle Eastern/South 3.90% Asian Multiracial 2.95% 6.41% -3.46% -53.98% 0.46 0.52 Native American 0.19% 0.4% -0.21% -52.5% 0.47 0.53 Other 0.38% Pacific Islander 0.15% 0.31% -0.16% -51.75% 0.48 0.54 White 49.45% 55.48% -6.03% -10.87% 0.89 Asian 4.38% 13.44% -9.05% -67.38% 0.33 0.34 Black 13.49% 7.04% 6.45% 91.51% 1.92 1.98 Hispanic 51.71% 47.61% 4.1% 8.61% 1.09 1.12 Middle Eastern/South 3.77% Asian Fresno PD Multiracial 0.23% 4.23% -3.99% -94.54% 0.05 0.06 Native American 0.19% 0.48% -0.29% -60.45% 0.4 0.41 Other 0.17% Pacific Islander 0.14% 0.1% 0.04% 44.14% 1.44 1.49 White 26.08% 26.93% -0.85% -3.15% 0.97 Asian 5.24% 12.84% -7.6% -59.22% 0.41 0.52 Black 28.25% 12.21% 16.04% 131.39% 2.31 2.94 Hispanic 37.8% 40.73% -2.94% -7.21% 0.93 1.18 Long Beach PD Middle Eastern/South 1.39% Asian Multiracial 4.02% 4.66% -0.64% -13.79% 0.86 1.09 Native American 0.13% 0.33% -0.2% -59.65% 0.4 0.51 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 61 RIPA Stop Distribution Compared to Weighted Population Distribution by Race/Ethnicity A B C D E F Equation A-B C/B*100 A/B E(m)/E(w)* Absolute Relative RIPA ACS Disparity Ratio of Agency Race/Ethnicity % % 2020 2019 Index Disparity Difference Difference Other 0.31% Pacific Islander 0.98% 0.75% 0.23% 30.64% 1.31 1.66 White 22.2% 28.16% -5.97% -21.19% 0.79 Asian 6% 14.43% -8.43% -58.42% 0.42 0.46 Black 17.18% 7.84% 9.34% 119.19% 2.19 2.4 Hispanic 48.71% 46.76% 1.95% 4.16% 1.04 1.14 Middle Eastern/South 2.21% Los Angeles CO Asian SD Multiracial 1.43% 4.0% -2.57% -64.33% 0.36 0.39 Native American 0.05% 0.21% -0.16% -76.33% 0.24 0.26 Other 0.32% Pacific Islander 0.5% 0.24% 0.26% 106.75% 2.07 2.26 White 23.93% 26.2% -2.27% -8.68% 0.91 Asian 3.2% 11.46% -8.27% -72.12% 0.28 0.47 Black 26.85% 8.61% 18.23% 211.62% 3.12 5.25 Hispanic 48.55% 47.02% 1.52% 3.24% 1.03 1.74 Middle Eastern/South 3.76% Asian Los Angeles PD Multiracial 0.45% 3.75% -3.3% -87.9% 0.12 0.2 Native American 0.06% 0.16% -0.1% -60.02% 0.4 0.67 Other 0.37% Pacific Islander 0.23% 0.13% 0.1% 75.03% 1.75 2.95 White 16.91% 28.48% -11.58% -40.65% 0.59 Asian 4.55% 15.34% -10.78% -70.3% 0.3 0.64 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 62 RIPA Stop Distribution Compared to Weighted Population Distribution by Race/Ethnicity A B C D E F Equation A-B C/B*100 A/B E(m)/E(w)* Absolute Relative RIPA ACS Disparity Ratio of Agency Race/Ethnicity % % 2020 2019 Index Disparity Difference Difference Black 52.84% 23.23% 29.61% 127.48% 2.27 4.9 Hispanic 25.33% 24.99% 0.34% 1.35% 1.01 2.18 Middle Eastern/South 2.23% Asian Oakland PD Multiracial 0.92% 6.87% -5.95% -86.6% 0.13 0.29 Native American 0.13% 0.34% -0.21% -61.19% 0.39 0.84 Other 0.43% Pacific Islander 0.85% 0.53% 0.33% 62.3% 1.62 3.49 White 13.14% 28.28% -15.14% -53.55% 0.46 Asian 6.31% 20.29% -13.99% -68.93% 0.31 0.26 Black 3.94% 1.62% 2.32% 143.57% 2.44 2.05 Hispanic 34.11% 32.73% 1.38% 4.21% 1.04 0.88 Middle Eastern/South 5.13% Asian Orange CO SO Multiracial 0.54% 4.1% -3.56% -86.73% 0.13 0.11 Native American 1.15% 0.19% 0.96% 497.86% 5.98 5.03 Other 0.19% Pacific Islander 0.52% 0.28% 0.24% 86.08% 1.86 1.56 White 48.29% 40.59% 7.7% 18.98% 1.19 Asian 3.21% 6.32% -3.11% -49.2% 0.51 0.49 Black 11.91% 6.1% 5.81% 95.16% 1.95 1.88 Riverside CO SO Hispanic 44.7% 46.91% -2.21% -4.72% 0.95 0.92 Middle Eastern/South 1.87% Asian Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 63 RIPA Stop Distribution Compared to Weighted Population Distribution by Race/Ethnicity A B C D E F Equation A-B C/B*100 A/B E(m)/E(w)* Absolute Relative RIPA ACS Disparity Ratio of Agency Race/Ethnicity % % 2020 2019 Index Disparity Difference Difference Multiracial 0.87% 4.41% -3.54% -80.23% 0.2 0.19 Native American 0.28% 0.43% -0.15% -34.73% 0.65 0.63 Other 0.25% Pacific Islander 0.54% 0.27% 0.27% 100.42% 2 1.93 White 36.62% 35.32% 1.31% 3.7% 1.04 Asian 3.07% 15.44% -12.37% -80.12% 0.2 0.2 Black 31.22% 9.49% 21.73% 228.95% 3.29 3.31 Hispanic 16.57% 21.06% -4.49% -21.32% 0.79 0.79 Middle Eastern/South 2.37% Asian Sacramento CO SD Multiracial 1.48% 7.47% -5.99% -80.2% 0.2 0.2 Native American 0.13% 0.36% -0.23% -63.09% 0.37 0.37 Other 0.33% Pacific Islander 0.68% 1.12% -0.44% -38.99% 0.61 0.61 White 44.49% 44.72% -0.23% -0.52% 0.99 Asian 4.93% 18.59% -13.66% -73.49% 0.27 0.31 Black 42.23% 12.74% 29.49% 231.43% 3.31 3.93 Hispanic 20.79% 26.33% -5.54% -21.03% 0.79 0.94 Middle Eastern/South 2.25% Sacramento PD Asian Multiracial 1.65% 7.43% -5.79% -77.83% 0.22 0.26 Native American 0.11% 0.37% -0.26% -69.38% 0.31 0.36 Other 0.38% Pacific Islander 0.68% 1.71% -1.04% -60.51% 0.39 0.47 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 64 RIPA Stop Distribution Compared to Weighted Population Distribution by Race/Ethnicity A B C D E F Equation A-B C/B*100 A/B E(m)/E(w)* Absolute Relative RIPA ACS Disparity Ratio of Agency Race/Ethnicity % % 2020 2019 Index Disparity Difference Difference White 27.35% 32.43% -5.08% -15.67% 0.84 Asian 3.1% 6.99% -3.89% -55.7% 0.44 0.35 Black 17.41% 7.88% 9.53% 120.9% 2.21 1.74 Hispanic 39.13% 50.81% -11.68% -22.99% 0.77 0.61 Middle Eastern/South 1.86% San Bernardino CO Asian SO Multiracial 1.71% 4.98% -3.27% -65.68% 0.34 0.27 Native American 0.21% 0.36% -0.15% -40.99% 0.59 0.47 Other 0.17% Pacific Islander 0.43% 0.29% 0.14% 48.48% 1.48 1.17 White 36.17% 28.53% 7.64% 26.78% 1.27 Asian 3.46% 11.63% -8.17% -70.23% 0.3 0.27 Black 7.11% 4.71% 2.4% 51.03% 1.51 1.35 Hispanic 32.61% 31.91% 0.7% 2.2% 1.02 0.91 Middle Eastern/South 2.88% Asian San Diego CO SO Multiracial 1.36% 5.24% -3.88% -74.1% 0.26 0.23 Native American 0.61% 0.38% 0.23% 60.91% 1.61 1.44 Other 0.2% Pacific Islander 0.95% 0.38% 0.56% 146.58% 2.47 2.2 White 51.03% 45.56% 5.47% 12.0% 1.12 Asian 4.77% 16.42% -11.66% -70.97% 0.29 0.3 San Diego PD Black 20.25% 6.05% 14.21% 235.0% 3.35 3.52 Hispanic 29.65% 28.69% 0.96% 3.36% 1.03 1.09 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 65 RIPA Stop Distribution Compared to Weighted Population Distribution by Race/Ethnicity A B C D E F Equation A-B C/B*100 A/B E(m)/E(w)* Absolute Relative RIPA ACS Disparity Ratio of Agency Race/Ethnicity % % 2020 2019 Index Disparity Difference Difference Middle Eastern/South 2.66% Asian Multiracial 0.98% 5.27% -4.29% -81.48% 0.19 0.19 Native American 0.21% 0.22% 0.0% -2.1% 0.98 1.03 Other 0.21% Pacific Islander 0.75% 0.38% 0.36% 94.2% 1.94 2.04 White 40.73% 42.76% -2.03% -4.74% 0.95 Asian 10.0% 34.07% -24.07% -70.65% 0.29 0.35 Black 27.0% 5.0% 22.0% 439.58% 5.4 6.36 Hispanic 19.55% 13.91% 5.64% 40.52% 1.41 1.66 Middle Eastern/South 5.32% Asian San Francisco PD Multiracial 2.17% 5.57% -3.39% -60.97% 0.39 0.46 Native American 0.2% 0.19% 0.01% 6.78% 1.07 1.26 Other 0.41% Pacific Islander 1.38% 0.34% 1.04% 310.85% 4.11 4.84 White 34.38% 40.51% -6.13% -15.14% 0.85 Asian 13.65% 35.7% -22.05% -61.77% 0.38 0.46 Black 7.77% 2.83% 4.94% 174.2% 2.74 3.33 Hispanic 49.99% 29.48% 20.5% 69.55% 1.7 2.06 San Jose PD Middle Eastern/South 4.90 Asian % Multiracial 1.7% 5.35% -3.64% -68.18% 0.32 0.39 Native American 0.12% 0.18% -0.06% -34.65% 0.65 0.79 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 66 RIPA Stop Distribution Compared to Weighted Population Distribution by Race/Ethnicity A B C D E F Equation A-B C/B*100 A/B E(m)/E(w)* Absolute Relative RIPA ACS Disparity Ratio of Agency Race/Ethnicity % % 2020 2019 Index Disparity Difference Difference Other 0.34% Pacific Islander 0.71% 0.4% 0.31% 78.54% 1.79 2.17 White 21.16% 25.73% -4.56% -17.73% 0.82 Notes. 2020 RIPA stop data were compared to 2019 residential population data from the American Community Survey (ACS). For a full description of the methodology, please see Appendix C.1. “Overall” refers to all agencies combined while “Municipal” excludes California Highway Patrol. E(m)/E(w); disparity index for minority group of color (m) divided by the value for White individuals (w). D.1.2 Residential Population Comparison to Calls for Service Stops RIPA Calls for Service Stop Distribution Compared to Weighted Population Distribution by Race/Ethnicity A B C D E F Equation A-B C/B*100 A/B E(m)/E(w)* Absolute Relative RIPA ACS Disparity Ratio of Agency Race/Ethnicity % % 2020 2019 Index Disparity Difference Difference Asian 2.87% 14.86% -11.98% -80.67% 0.19 0.21 Black 27.27% 8.75% 18.52% 211.77% 3.12 3.31 Hispanic 34.29% 36.73% -2.44% -6.65% 0.93 0.99 Middle Eastern/South Overall 2.06% Asian Multiracial 1.07% 5.03% -3.97% -78.80% 0.21 0.22 Native American 0.22% 0.26% -0.03% -13.58% 0.86 0.92 Other 0.32% Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 67 RIPA Calls for Service Stop Distribution Compared to Weighted Population Distribution by Race/Ethnicity A B C D E F Equation A-B C/B*100 A/B E(m)/E(w)* Absolute Relative RIPA ACS Disparity Ratio of Agency Race/Ethnicity % % 2020 2019 Index Disparity Difference Difference Pacific Islander 0.54% 0.43% 0.10% 24.24% 1.24 1.32 White 31.69% 33.62% -1.93% -5.75% 0.94 Asian 2.85% 14.90% -12.05% -80.84% 0.19 0.21 Black 28.58% 9.00% 19.58% 217.48% 3.17 3.42 Hispanic 33.86% 36.69% -2.83% -7.72% 0.92 0.99 Middle Eastern/South 1.95% Asian Municipal Multiracial 1.09% 5.04% -3.96% -78.49% 0.22 0.23 Native American 0.19% 0.25% -0.06% -22.55% 0.77 0.83 Other 0.33% Pacific Islander 0.54% 0.44% 0.10% 23.91% 1.24 1.34 White 30.93% 33.34% -2.41% -7.23% 0.93 Asian 0.78% 7.29% -6.51% -89.29% 0.11 0.09 Black 19.68% 7.23% 12.44% 172.05% 2.72 2.32 Hispanic 39.21% 48.57% -9.36% -19.27% 0.81 0.69 Middle Eastern/South 1.10% Asian Bakersfield PD Multiracial 0.66% 3.78% -3.12% -82.57% 0.17 0.15 Native American 0.15% 0.25% -0.11% -42.16% 0.58 0.49 Other 0.17% Pacific Islander 0.24% 0.19% 0.06% 30.34% 1.3 1.11 White 38.19% 32.52% 5.67% 17.42% 1.17 Asian 3.08% 14.28% -11.20% -78.41% 0.22 0.19 Black 10.7% 5.52% 5.17% 93.72% 1.94 1.74 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 68 RIPA Calls for Service Stop Distribution Compared to Weighted Population Distribution by Race/Ethnicity A B C D E F Equation A-B C/B*100 A/B E(m)/E(w)* Absolute Relative RIPA ACS Disparity Ratio of Agency Race/Ethnicity % % 2020 2019 Index Disparity Difference Difference Hispanic 39.69% 37.15% 2.54% 6.83% 1.07 0.96 Middle Eastern/South 3.35% Asian California Multiracial 0.84% 4.89% -4.06% -82.86% 0.17 0.15 Highway Patrol Native American 0.59% 0.36% 0.23% 64.9% 1.65 1.48 Other 0.25% Pacific Islander 0.46% 0.36% 0.10% 29.28% 1.29 1.16 White 41.29% 37.18% 4.11% 11.06% 1.11 Asian 5.69% 22.68% -16.99% -74.92% 0.25 0.26 Black 13.65% 2.07% 11.58% 559.06% 6.59 6.89 Hispanic 22.25% 12.26% 10.00% 81.56% 1.82 1.9 Middle Eastern/South 2.15% Asian Davis PD Multiracial 2.53% 6.41% -3.89% -60.58% 0.39 0.41 Native American 0.38% 0.40% -0.02% -4.78% 0.95 0.99 Other 0.38% Pacific Islander 0.25% 0.31% -0.06% -19.39% 0.81 0.84 White 53.1% 55.48% -2.38% -4.30% 0.96 Asian 3.62% 13.44% -9.82% -73.08% 0.27 0.28 Black 19.22% 7.04% 12.17% 172.83% 2.73 2.79 Hispanic 48.0% 47.61% 0.39% 0.82% 1.01 1.03 Fresno PD Middle Eastern/South 1.96% Asian Multiracial 0.30% 4.23% -3.92% -92.87% 0.07 0.07 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 69 RIPA Calls for Service Stop Distribution Compared to Weighted Population Distribution by Race/Ethnicity A B C D E F Equation A-B C/B*100 A/B E(m)/E(w)* Absolute Relative RIPA ACS Disparity Ratio of Agency Race/Ethnicity % % 2020 2019 Index Disparity Difference Difference Native American 0.45% 0.48% -0.03% -5.88% 0.94 0.96 Other 0.17% Pacific Islander 0.15% 0.10% 0.05% 52.46% 1.52 1.56 White 26.3% 26.93% -0.63% -2.34% 0.98 Asian 2.77% 12.84% -10.07% -78.45% 0.22 0.24 Black 33.76% 12.21% 21.55% 176.52% 2.77 3.09 Hispanic 34.08% 40.73% -6.65% -16.33% 0.84 0.93 Middle Eastern/South 0.64% Asian Long Beach PD Multiracial 2.13% 4.66% -2.54% -54.44% 0.46 0.51 Native American 0.32% 0.33% -0.01% -3.15% 0.97 1.08 Other 0.31% Pacific Islander 1.08% 0.75% 0.34% 44.88% 1.45 1.62 White 25.22% 28.16% -2.94% -10.45% 0.9 Asian 2.24% 14.43% -12.19% -84.51% 0.15 0.18 Black 27.66% 7.84% 19.82% 252.86% 3.53 4.09 Hispanic 43.26% 46.76% -3.50% -7.49% 0.93 1.07 Middle Eastern/South 1.02% Los Angeles CO Asian SD Multiracial 2.86% 4.00% -1.13% -28.35% 0.72 0.83 Native American 0.10% 0.21% -0.10% -50.82% 0.49 0.57 Other 0.32% Pacific Islander 0.27% 0.24% 0.03% 11.08% 1.11 1.29 White 22.59% 26.2% -3.61% -13.77% 0.86 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 70 RIPA Calls for Service Stop Distribution Compared to Weighted Population Distribution by Race/Ethnicity A B C D E F Equation A-B C/B*100 A/B E(m)/E(w)* Absolute Relative RIPA ACS Disparity Ratio of Agency Race/Ethnicity % % 2020 2019 Index Disparity Difference Difference Asian 2.26% 11.46% -9.20% -80.30% 0.2 0.27 Black 27.72% 8.61% 19.11% 221.79% 3.22 4.4 Hispanic 45.97% 47.02% -1.06% -2.24% 0.98 1.34 Middle Eastern/South 2.42% Asian Los Angeles PD Multiracial 0.48% 3.75% -3.27% -87.16% 0.13 0.18 Native American 0.10% 0.16% -0.06% -39.21% 0.61 0.83 Other 0.37% Pacific Islander 0.24% 0.13% 0.11% 85.33% 1.85 2.54 White 20.81% 28.48% -7.67% -26.94% 0.73 Asian 3.75% 15.34% -11.59% -75.55% 0.24 0.46 Black 54.16% 23.23% 30.94% 133.17% 2.33 4.41 Hispanic 23.54% 24.99% -1.45% -5.80% 0.94 1.78 Middle Eastern/South 1.52% Asian Oakland PD Multiracial 1.09% 6.87% -5.77% -84.06% 0.16 0.3 Native American 0.17% 0.34% -0.17% -49.67% 0.5 0.95 Other 0.43% Pacific Islander 0.79% 0.53% 0.26% 50.21% 1.5 2.84 White 14.97% 28.28% -13.31% -47.08% 0.53 Asian 3.28% 20.29% -17.02% -83.85% 0.16 0.12 Orange CO SO Black 5.36% 1.62% 3.74% 230.94% 3.31 2.45 Hispanic 33.09% 32.73% 0.36% 1.11% 1.01 0.75 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 71 RIPA Calls for Service Stop Distribution Compared to Weighted Population Distribution by Race/Ethnicity A B C D E F Equation A-B C/B*100 A/B E(m)/E(w)* Absolute Relative RIPA ACS Disparity Ratio of Agency Race/Ethnicity % % 2020 2019 Index Disparity Difference Difference Middle Eastern/South 2.48% Asian Multiracial 0.56% 4.10% -3.54% -86.36% 0.14 0.1 Native American 0.16% 0.19% -0.03% -17.19% 0.83 0.61 Other 0.19% Pacific Islander 0.32% 0.28% 0.04% 13.46% 1.13 0.84 White 54.76% 40.59% 14.17% 34.91% 1.35 Asian 1.98% 6.32% -4.33% -68.6% 0.31 0.29 Black 15.99% 6.10% 9.88% 161.96% 2.62 2.38 Hispanic 40.48% 46.91% -6.43% -13.70% 0.86 0.78 Middle Eastern/South 0.95% Asian Riverside CO SO Multiracial 0.69% 4.41% -3.72% -84.42% 0.16 0.14 Native American 0.53% 0.43% 0.10% 24.31% 1.24 1.13 Other 0.25% Pacific Islander 0.46% 0.27% 0.19% 70.62% 1.71 1.55 White 38.92% 35.32% 3.60% 10.18% 1.1 Asian 2.25% 15.44% -13.19% -85.43% 0.15 0.13 Black 29.25% 9.49% 19.76% 208.22% 3.08 2.72 Hispanic 14.07% 21.06% -6.99% -33.19% 0.67 0.59 Sacramento CO SD Middle Eastern/South 1.74% Asian Multiracial 1.19% 7.47% -6.28% -84.14% 0.16 0.14 Native American 0.16% 0.36% -0.21% -57.07% 0.43 0.38 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 72 RIPA Calls for Service Stop Distribution Compared to Weighted Population Distribution by Race/Ethnicity A B C D E F Equation A-B C/B*100 A/B E(m)/E(w)* Absolute Relative RIPA ACS Disparity Ratio of Agency Race/Ethnicity % % 2020 2019 Index Disparity Difference Difference Other 0.33% Pacific Islander 0.64% 1.12% -0.48% -42.90% 0.57 0.5 White 50.7% 44.72% 5.98% 13.37% 1.13 Asian 4.27% 18.59% -14.33% -77.06% 0.23 0.22 Black 39.92% 12.74% 27.18% 213.32% 3.13 3.01 Hispanic 17.54% 26.33% -8.79% -33.39% 0.67 0.64 Middle Eastern/South 1.94% Asian Sacramento PD Multiracial 1.59% 7.43% -5.84% -78.57% 0.21 0.21 Native American 0.18% 0.37% -0.19% -50.71% 0.49 0.47 Other 0.38% Pacific Islander 0.84% 1.71% -0.88% -51.21% 0.49 0.47 White 33.72% 32.43% 1.28% 3.95% 1.04 Asian 1.71% 6.99% -5.28% -75.58% 0.24 0.19 Black 20.6% 7.88% 12.72% 161.47% 2.61 2 Hispanic 37.21% 50.81% -13.6% -26.76% 0.73 0.56 Middle Eastern/South 0.93% San Bernardino CO Asian SO Multiracial 1.5% 4.98% -3.47% -69.8% 0.3 0.23 Native American 0.26% 0.36% -0.10% -27.72% 0.72 0.55 Other 0.17% Pacific Islander 0.40% 0.29% 0.11% 38.68% 1.39 1.06 White 37.39% 28.53% 8.86% 31.05% 1.31 Asian 2.0% 11.63% -9.63% -82.77% 0.17 0.15 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 73 RIPA Calls for Service Stop Distribution Compared to Weighted Population Distribution by Race/Ethnicity A B C D E F Equation A-B C/B*100 A/B E(m)/E(w)* Absolute Relative RIPA ACS Disparity Ratio of Agency Race/Ethnicity % % 2020 2019 Index Disparity Difference Difference Black 9.31% 4.71% 4.61% 97.89% 1.98 1.67 Hispanic 30.37% 31.91% -1.54% -4.81% 0.95 0.8 Middle Eastern/South 1.44% Asian San Diego CO SO Multiracial 1.12% 5.24% -4.12% -78.54% 0.21 0.18 Native American 0.91% 0.38% 0.54% 142.95% 2.43 2.05 Other 0.20% Pacific Islander 0.95% 0.38% 0.56% 146.89% 2.47 2.09 White 53.88% 45.56% 8.33% 18.27% 1.18 Asian 3.22% 16.42% -13.21% -80.41% 0.2 0.19 Black 22.73% 6.05% 16.68% 275.97% 3.76 3.65 Hispanic 25.93% 28.69% -2.76% -9.62% 0.9 0.88 Middle Eastern/South 1.91% Asian San Diego PD Multiracial 1.04% 5.27% -4.23% -80.28% 0.2 0.19 Native American 0.26% 0.22% 0.05% 21.91% 1.22 1.18 Other 0.21% Pacific Islander 0.88% 0.38% 0.49% 128.06% 2.28 2.21 White 44.03% 42.76% 1.28% 2.99% 1.03 Asian 5.42% 34.07% -28.65% -84.10% 0.16 0.18 Black 33.34% 5.0% 28.33% 566.21% 6.66 7.53 San Francisco PD Hispanic 19.18% 13.91% 5.27% 37.86% 1.38 1.56 Middle Eastern/South 2.30% Asian Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 74 RIPA Calls for Service Stop Distribution Compared to Weighted Population Distribution by Race/Ethnicity A B C D E F Equation A-B C/B*100 A/B E(m)/E(w)* Absolute Relative RIPA ACS Disparity Ratio of Agency Race/Ethnicity % % 2020 2019 Index Disparity Difference Difference Multiracial 2.27% 5.57% -3.30% -59.21% 0.41 0.46 Native American 0.36% 0.19% 0.18% 94.94% 1.95 2.2 Other 0.41% Pacific Islander 1.3% 0.34% 0.96% 287.73% 3.88 4.38 White 35.83% 40.51% -4.67% -11.54% 0.88 Asian 7.81% 35.7% -27.89% -78.14% 0.22 0.22 Black 13.51% 2.83% 10.68% 376.65% 4.77 4.85 Hispanic 47.74% 29.48% 18.26% 61.92% 1.62 1.65 Middle Eastern/South 2.85% Asian San Jose PD Multiracial 2.02% 5.35% -3.33% -62.20% 0.38 0.38 Native American 0.04% 0.18% -0.14% -77.82% 0.22 0.23 Other 0.34% Pacific Islander 0.75% 0.40% 0.35% 88.87% 1.89 1.92 White 25.28% 25.73% -0.45% -1.74% 0.98 Notes. 2020 RIPA stop data were compared to 2019 residential population data from the American Community Survey (ACS). For a full description of the methodology, please see Appendix C.1. “Overall” refers to all agencies combined while “Municipal” excludes California Highway Patrol. E(m)/E(w); disparity index for minority group of color (m) divided by the value for White individuals (w). Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 75 D.1.3 Residential Population Comparison to Officer-Initiated Stops RIPA Officer-Initiated Stop Distribution Compared to Weighted Population Distribution by Race/Ethnicity A B C D E F Equation A-B C/B*100 A/B E(m)/E(w)* Absolute Relative RIPA ACS Disparity Ratio of Agency Race/Ethnicity % % 2020 2019 Index Disparity Difference Difference Asian 5.31% 13.92% -8.61% -61.85% 0.38 0.42 Black 15.82% 6.42% 9.40% 146.43% 2.46 2.74 Hispanic 40.80% 38.72% 2.08% 5.37% 1.05 1.17 Middle Eastern/South 4.82% Asian Overall Multiracial 0.87% 4.75% -3.89% -81.79% 0.18 0.2 Native American 0.21% 0.31% -0.10% -33.25% 0.67 0.74 Other 0.27% Pacific Islander 0.52% 0.34% 0.18% 52.47% 1.52 1.7 White 31.66% 35.26% -3.60% -10.22% 0.9 Asian 4.41% 13.36% -8.95% -66.97% 0.33 0.4 Black 22.25% 7.82% 14.43% 184.62% 2.85 3.41 Hispanic 41.51% 41.17% 0.34% 0.83% 1.01 1.21 Middle Eastern/South 3.31% Asian Municipal Multiracial 0.96% 4.53% -3.57% -78.77% 0.21 0.25 Native American 0.17% 0.24% -0.07% -29.27% 0.71 0.85 Other 0.31% Pacific Islander 0.46% 0.31% 0.15% 47.66% 1.48 1.77 White 26.93% 32.27% -5.34% -16.56% 0.83 Asian 1.66% 7.29% -5.63% -77.22% 0.23 0.22 Bakersfield PD Black 15.24% 7.23% 8.01% 110.74% 2.11 2.03 Hispanic 46.34% 48.57% -2.23% -4.59% 0.95 0.92 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 76 RIPA Officer-Initiated Stop Distribution Compared to Weighted Population Distribution by Race/Ethnicity A B C D E F Equation A-B C/B*100 A/B E(m)/E(w)* Absolute Relative RIPA ACS Disparity Ratio of Agency Race/Ethnicity % % 2020 2019 Index Disparity Difference Difference Middle Eastern/South 2.49% Asian Multiracial 0.33% 3.78% -3.44% -91.14% 0.09 0.09 Native American 0.09% 0.25% -0.17% -65.71% 0.34 0.33 Other 0.17% Pacific Islander 0.14% 0.19% -0.05% -27.13% 0.73 0.7 White 33.71% 32.52% 1.19% 3.66% 1.04 Asian 5.89% 14.28% -8.40% -58.78% 0.41 0.44 Black 11.69% 5.52% 6.17% 111.70% 2.12 2.27 Hispanic 40.35% 37.15% 3.20% 8.61% 1.09 1.16 Middle Eastern/South 5.79% California Asian Highway Patrol Multiracial 0.80% 4.89% -4.09% -83.58% 0.16 0.18 Native American 0.23% 0.36% -0.13% -34.93% 0.65 0.7 Other 0.25% Pacific Islander 0.56% 0.36% 0.20% 55.17% 1.55 1.66 White 34.69% 37.18% -2.49% -6.68% 0.93 Asian 10.80% 22.68% -11.88% -52.39% 0.48 0.55 Black 10.64% 2.07% 8.57% 413.45% 5.13 5.95 Hispanic 22.68% 12.26% 10.42% 85.05% 1.85 2.14 Davis PD Middle Eastern/South 4.64% Asian Multiracial 3.13% 6.41% -3.28% -51.17% 0.49 0.57 Native American 0.11% 0.40% -0.29% -72.89% 0.27 0.31 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 77 RIPA Officer-Initiated Stop Distribution Compared to Weighted Population Distribution by Race/Ethnicity A B C D E F Equation A-B C/B*100 A/B E(m)/E(w)* Absolute Relative RIPA ACS Disparity Ratio of Agency Race/Ethnicity % % 2020 2019 Index Disparity Difference Difference Other 0.38% Pacific Islander 0.11% 0.31% -0.21% -65.57% 0.34 0.4 White 47.89% 55.48% -7.59% -13.67% 0.86 Asian 4.46% 13.44% -8.98% -66.82% 0.33 0.34 Black 12.92% 7.04% 5.88% 83.47% 1.83 1.9 Hispanic 52.08% 47.61% 4.47% 9.38% 1.09 1.13 Middle Eastern/South 3.95% Asian Fresno PD Multiracial 0.22% 4.23% -4.00% -94.71% 0.05 0.05 Native American 0.16% 0.48% -0.32% -65.85% 0.34 0.35 Other 0.17% Pacific Islander 0.14% 0.10% 0.04% 43.32% 1.43 1.48 White 26.06% 26.93% -0.87% -3.23% 0.97 Asian 5.65% 12.84% -7.18% -55.96% 0.44 0.57 Black 27.32% 12.21% 15.11% 123.74% 2.24 2.91 Hispanic 38.43% 40.73% -2.31% -5.66% 0.94 1.23 Middle Eastern/South 1.52% Asian Long Beach PD Multiracial 4.34% 4.66% -0.32% -6.91% 0.93 1.21 Native American 0.10% 0.33% -0.23% -69.22% 0.31 0.4 Other 0.31% Pacific Islander 0.96% 0.75% 0.21% 28.22% 1.28 1.67 White 21.68% 28.16% -6.48% -23.01% 0.77 Asian 6.23% 14.43% -8.20% -56.86% 0.43 0.47 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 78 RIPA Officer-Initiated Stop Distribution Compared to Weighted Population Distribution by Race/Ethnicity A B C D E F Equation A-B C/B*100 A/B E(m)/E(w)* Absolute Relative RIPA ACS Disparity Ratio of Agency Race/Ethnicity % % 2020 2019 Index Disparity Difference Difference Black 16.55% 7.84% 8.71% 111.17% 2.11 2.3 Hispanic 49.03% 46.76% 2.27% 4.86% 1.05 1.14 Middle Eastern/South 2.28% Asian Los Angeles CO Multiracial 1.34% 4.00% -2.66% -66.49% 0.34 0.37 SD Native American 0.05% 0.21% -0.16% -77.86% 0.22 0.24 Other 0.32% Pacific Islander 0.52% 0.24% 0.27% 112.50% 2.12 2.32 White 24.01% 26.2% -2.19% -8.38% 0.92 Asian 3.32% 11.46% -8.14% -71.05% 0.29 0.5 Black 26.73% 8.61% 18.12% 210.29% 3.1 5.39 Hispanic 48.88% 47.02% 1.86% 3.96% 1.04 1.81 Middle Eastern/South 3.94% Asian Los Angeles PD Multiracial 0.45% 3.75% -3.3% -87.99% 0.12 0.21 Native American 0.06% 0.16% -0.10% -62.74% 0.37 0.65 Other 0.37% Pacific Islander 0.22% 0.13% 0.09% 73.68% 1.74 3.02 White 16.40% 28.48% -12.09% -42.44% 0.58 Asian 5.26% 15.34% -10.07% -65.68% 0.34 0.84 Black 51.68% 23.23% 28.45% 122.46% 2.22 5.46 Oakland PD Hispanic 26.9% 24.99% 1.91% 7.64% 1.08 2.64 Middle Eastern/South 2.86% Asian Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 79 RIPA Officer-Initiated Stop Distribution Compared to Weighted Population Distribution by Race/Ethnicity A B C D E F Equation A-B C/B*100 A/B E(m)/E(w)* Absolute Relative RIPA ACS Disparity Ratio of Agency Race/Ethnicity % % 2020 2019 Index Disparity Difference Difference Multiracial 0.77% 6.87% -6.10% -88.83% 0.11 0.27 Native American 0.10% 0.34% -0.24% -71.33% 0.29 0.7 Other 0.43% Pacific Islander 0.91% 0.53% 0.38% 72.94% 1.73 4.24 White 11.53% 28.28% -16.75% -59.24% 0.41 Asian 6.40% 20.29% -13.89% -68.45% 0.32 0.27 Black 3.90% 1.62% 2.28% 140.74% 2.41 2.03 Hispanic 34.14% 32.73% 1.41% 4.31% 1.04 0.88 Middle Eastern/South 5.22% Asian Orange CO SO Multiracial 0.54% 4.10% -3.56% -86.74% 0.13 0.11 Native American 1.19% 0.19% 0.99% 514.55% 6.15 5.19 Other 0.19% Pacific Islander 0.53% 0.28% 0.25% 88.43% 1.88 1.59 White 48.08% 40.59% 7.49% 18.46% 1.18 Asian 3.27% 6.32% -3.05% -48.26% 0.52 0.5 Black 11.71% 6.10% 5.61% 91.91% 1.92 1.86 Hispanic 44.9% 46.91% -2.01% -4.28% 0.96 0.93 Middle Eastern/South 1.92% Riverside CO SO Asian Multiracial 0.88% 4.41% -3.53% -80.03% 0.2 0.19 Native American 0.27% 0.43% -0.16% -37.62% 0.62 0.6 Other 0.25% Pacific Islander 0.54% 0.27% 0.27% 101.87% 2.02 1.95 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 80 RIPA Officer-Initiated Stop Distribution Compared to Weighted Population Distribution by Race/Ethnicity A B C D E F Equation A-B C/B*100 A/B E(m)/E(w)* Absolute Relative RIPA ACS Disparity Ratio of Agency Race/Ethnicity % % 2020 2019 Index Disparity Difference Difference White 36.51% 35.32% 1.19% 3.38% 1.03 Asian 3.57% 15.44% -11.87% -76.88% 0.23 0.25 Black 32.42% 9.49% 22.93% 241.60% 3.42 3.75 Hispanic 18.09% 21.06% -2.97% -14.08% 0.86 0.94 Middle Eastern/South 2.73% Asian Sacramento CO SD Multiracial 1.66% 7.47% -5.81% -77.80% 0.22 0.24 Native American 0.12% 0.36% -0.24% -66.77% 0.33 0.37 Other 0.33% Pacific Islander 0.71% 1.12% -0.41% -36.60% 0.63 0.7 White 40.70% 44.72% -4.03% -9.00% 0.91 Asian 5.10% 18.59% -13.50% -72.59% 0.27 0.35 Black 42.81% 12.74% 30.07% 235.96% 3.36 4.23 Hispanic 21.61% 26.33% -4.72% -17.94% 0.82 1.03 Middle Eastern/South 2.33% Asian Sacramento PD Multiracial 1.66% 7.43% -5.77% -77.64% 0.22 0.28 Native American 0.10% 0.37% -0.28% -74.05% 0.26 0.33 Other 0.38% Pacific Islander 0.64% 1.71% -1.08% -62.83% 0.37 0.47 White 25.76% 32.43% -6.67% -20.58% 0.79 Asian 3.24% 6.99% -3.75% -53.62% 0.46 0.37 San Bernardino CO Black 17.07% 7.88% 9.19% 116.66% 2.17 1.72 SO Hispanic 39.33% 50.81% -11.48% -22.60% 0.77 0.61 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 81 RIPA Officer-Initiated Stop Distribution Compared to Weighted Population Distribution by Race/Ethnicity A B C D E F Equation A-B C/B*100 A/B E(m)/E(w)* Absolute Relative RIPA ACS Disparity Ratio of Agency Race/Ethnicity % % 2020 2019 Index Disparity Difference Difference Middle Eastern/South 1.95% Asian Multiracial 1.73% 4.98% -3.25% -65.25% 0.35 0.28 Native American 0.21% 0.36% -0.15% -42.38% 0.58 0.46 Other 0.17% Pacific Islander 0.43% 0.29% 0.14% 49.50% 1.49 1.18 White 36.04% 28.53% 7.51% 26.33% 1.26 Asian 3.58% 11.63% -8.05% -69.24% 0.31 0.28 Black 6.93% 4.71% 2.23% 47.33% 1.47 1.32 Hispanic 32.79% 31.91% 0.88% 2.76% 1.03 0.92 Middle Eastern/South 3.00% Asian San Diego CO SO Multiracial 1.38% 5.24% -3.87% -73.75% 0.26 0.24 Native American 0.58% 0.38% 0.20% 54.42% 1.54 1.38 Other 0.20% Pacific Islander 0.95% 0.38% 0.56% 146.56% 2.47 2.21 White 50.8% 45.56% 5.24% 11.51% 1.12 Asian 4.95% 16.42% -11.47% -69.85 0.3 0.32 Black 19.96% 6.05% 13.91% 230.14% 3.3 3.5 Hispanic 30.10% 28.69% 1.40% 4.90% 1.05 1.11 San Diego PD Middle Eastern/South 2.75% Asian Multiracial 0.97% 5.27% -4.30% -81.62% 0.18 0.19 Native American 0.20% 0.22% -0.01% -4.95% 0.95 1.01 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 82 RIPA Officer-Initiated Stop Distribution Compared to Weighted Population Distribution by Race/Ethnicity A B C D E F Equation A-B C/B*100 A/B E(m)/E(w)* Absolute Relative RIPA ACS Disparity Ratio of Agency Race/Ethnicity % % 2020 2019 Index Disparity Difference Difference Other 0.21% Pacific Islander 0.73% 0.38% 0.35% 90.18% 1.9 2.02 White 40.34% 42.76% -2.42% -5.66% 0.94 Asian 11.95% 34.07% -22.12% -64.92% 0.35 0.42 Black 24.30% 5.00% 19.30% 385.63% 4.86 5.83 Hispanic 19.71% 13.91% 5.80% 41.66% 1.42 1.7 Middle Eastern/South 6.61% Asian San Francisco PD Multiracial 2.13% 5.57% -3.44% -61.73% 0.38 0.46 Native American 0.13% 0.19% -0.06% -30.79% 0.69 0.83 Other 0.41% Pacific Islander 1.41% 0.34% 1.08% 320.70% 4.21 5.05 White 33.75% 40.51% -6.75% -16.67% 0.83 Asian 14.60% 35.70% -21.10% -59.10% 0.41 0.51 Black 6.84% 2.83% 4.00% 141.15% 2.41 3.03 Hispanic 50.36% 29.48% 20.87% 70.79% 1.71 2.14 Middle Eastern/South 5.23% Asian San Jose PD Multiracial 1.65% 5.35% -3.70% -69.15% 0.31 0.39 Native American 0.13% 0.18% -0.05% -27.61% 0.72 0.91 Other 0.34% Pacific Islander 0.70% 0.40% 0.31% 76.85% 1.77 2.22 White 20.49% 25.73% -5.23% -20.34% 0.8 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 83 RIPA Officer-Initiated Stop Distribution Compared to Weighted Population Distribution by Race/Ethnicity A B C D E F Equation A-B C/B*100 A/B E(m)/E(w)* Absolute Relative RIPA ACS Disparity Ratio of Agency Race/Ethnicity % % 2020 2019 Index Disparity Difference Difference Notes. 2020 RIPA stop data were compared to 2019 residential population data from the American Community Survey (ACS). For a full description of the methodology, please see Appendix C.1. “Overall” refers to all agencies combined while “Municipal” excludes California Highway Patrol. E(m)/E(w); disparity index for minority group of color (m) divided by the value for White individuals (w). Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 84 D.2 Discovery Rate Analysis Tables D.2.1 Search Rates Regression Statistics for Search Rates by Race/Ethnicity Agency Statistic Asian Black Hispanic Other ***-0.020 Coefficients ***0.010 ***0.006 ***-0.018 Overall (0.001) (0.001) (0.001) (0.001) Observations 1081587 1414138 2117501 1113754 Adjusted R2 0.305 0.349 0.324 0.305 ***-0.034 ***0.010 0.001 ***-0.037 Coefficients Municipal (0.002) (0.002) (0.001) (0.002) Observations 392686 626583 843751 399445 Adjusted R2 0.291 0.304 0.302 0.287 0.042 Coefficients -0.003 -0.011 -0.044 Bakersfield PD (0.026) (0.012) (0.009) (0.022) Observations 4452 6323 9633 4620 Adjusted R2 0.353 0.339 0.340 0.355 ***-0.009 *-0.001 ***0.006 ***-0.006 Coefficients California Highway (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) Patrol 688901 787555 1273750 714309 Observations Adjusted R2 0.091 0.091 0.107 0.090 0.118 Coefficients 0.045 -0.003 -0.033 Davis PD (0.037) (0.032) (0.018) (0.030) Observations 1552 1612 1903 1497 Adjusted R2 0.253 0.228 0.235 0.245 0.007 Coefficients 0.014 -0.007 -0.015 Fresno PD (0.006) (0.010) (0.005) (0.008) Observations 4490 5832 11465 4483 Adjusted R2 0.478 0.438 0.392 0.465 0.138 Coefficients 0.057 -0.037 -0.075 LAUSD (0.075) (0.055) (0.059) (0.083) Observations 159 313 888 180 Adjusted R2 0.506 0.430 0.509 0.544 0.057 Coefficients -0.005 -0.009 *-0.044 Long Beach PD (0.015) (0.010) (0.010) (0.017) Observations 4721 8682 10325 4942 Adjusted R2 0.264 0.239 0.228 0.271 ***-0.037 Coefficients *-0.011 *-0.008 ***-0.026 Los Angeles CO SD (0.006) (0.005) (0.003) (0.006) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 85 Regression Statistics for Search Rates by Race/Ethnicity Agency Statistic Asian Black Hispanic Other Observations 31208 42868 75740 29315 Adjusted R2 0.473 0.447 0.464 0.465 0.014 Coefficients ***0.015 ***0.012 ***-0.028 Los Angeles PD (0.003) (0.002) (0.002) (0.003) Observations 104820 228139 341292 111643 Adjusted R2 0.336 0.376 0.341 0.334 0.006 Coefficients 0.022 0.025 *-0.046 Oakland PD (0.017) (0.010) (0.012) (0.018) Observations 3729 13906 8107 3641 Adjusted R2 0.342 0.295 0.345 0.312 0.055 Coefficients -0.022 -0.011 ***-0.054 Orange CO SO (0.011) (0.012) (0.006) (0.009) Observations 21759 20817 32839 22178 Adjusted R2 0.401 0.391 0.377 0.398 0.011 Coefficients -0.004 0.000 -0.004 Riverside CO SO (0.006) (0.004) (0.003) (0.005) Observations 22442 27344 45815 22640 Adjusted R2 0.430 0.402 0.367 0.431 0.029 Coefficients 0.011 0.002 ***-0.049 Sacramento CO SD (0.017) (0.006) (0.007) (0.013) Observations 20869 33222 26793 21563 Adjusted R2 0.181 0.173 0.173 0.176 0.039 Coefficients **0.017 0.004 ***-0.052 Sacramento PD (0.010) (0.006) (0.007) (0.011) Observations 16607 35798 24768 16486 Adjusted R2 0.241 0.208 0.224 0.229 0.097 Coefficients ***-0.025 ***-0.028 ***-0.053 San Bernardino CO SO (0.011) (0.005) (0.004) (0.007) Observations 42805 58407 82088 44014 Adjusted R2 0.265 0.247 0.245 0.261 0.056 Coefficients *-0.024 ***-0.024 ***-0.053 San Diego CO SO (0.011) (0.009) (0.006) (0.009) Observations 21155 22571 32471 22060 Adjusted R2 0.273 0.263 0.248 0.270 ***-0.037 Coefficients ***0.017 0.007 ***-0.030 San Diego PD (0.005) (0.004) (0.003) (0.005) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 86 Regression Statistics for Search Rates by Race/Ethnicity Agency Statistic Asian Black Hispanic Other Observations 68523 91846 106004 68264 Adjusted R2 0.163 0.148 0.155 0.159 0.026 Coefficients ***0.040 **0.024 ***-0.042 San Francisco PD (0.006) (0.007) (0.007) (0.008) Observations 17133 23698 20821 16776 Adjusted R2 0.285 0.257 0.277 0.276 0.045 Coefficients 0.020 0.005 ***-0.051 San Jose PD (0.013) (0.014) (0.008) (0.014) Observations 6262 5205 12799 5143 Adjusted R2 0.332 0.308 0.267 0.332 Notes. For a full description of the methodology, please see Appendix C.3. Each set of model statistics for a particular agency and race/ethnicity corresponds to a single regression test. Each model only contained a single racial/ethnic group of color and White individuals; White individuals were the reference group for all analyses. “Overall” refers to all agencies combined while “Municipal” excludes California Highway Patrol. Asterisks represent level of significance for adjusted p values using the Benjamini-Hochberg Procedure for multiple comparisons *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05. Coefficients; estimate (standard error). Observations represent the number of stops analyzed by the statistical model. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 87 D.2.2 Discovery Rates during Stops with Discretionary Searches Regression Statistics for Discretionary-Search Discovery Rates by Race/Ethnicity Agency Statistic Asian Black Hispanic Other -0.003 ***-0.016 ***-0.014 **-0.020 Coefficients Overall (0.009) (0.004) (0.004) (0.008) Observations 46480 108768 128193 48341 Adjusted R2 0.157 0.186 0.171 0.161 0.000 Coefficients **-0.015 **-0.011 *-0.018 Municipal (0.010) (0.004) (0.004) (0.008) Observations 44913 106699 124987 46715 Adjusted R2 0.140 0.177 0.159 0.143 -0.031 0.006 -0.117 Coefficients 0.091 (0.173) Bakersfield PD (0.023) (0.019) (0.080) Observations 688 1084 1553 709 Adjusted R2 0.154 0.148 0.118 0.160 -0.050 -0.035 **-0.106 -0.052 Coefficients California Highway (0.046) (0.033) (0.027) (0.049) Patrol 1567 2069 3206 1626 Observations Adjusted R2 0.380 0.359 0.327 0.380 -0.161 0.043 *0.271 Coefficients 0.220 (0.152) Davis PD (0.073) (0.036) (0.094) Observations 300 355 408 315 Adjusted R2 0.011 0.076 0.037 0.066 -0.005 0.037 0.038 Coefficients 0.083 (0.062) Long Beach PD (0.023) (0.023) (0.045) Observations 694 1577 1853 750 Adjusted R2 0.018 0.036 0.071 0.022 0.028 Coefficients ***-0.076 -0.032 -0.012 Los Angeles CO SD (0.054) (0.016) (0.013) (0.042) Observations 2105 4926 7577 2432 Adjusted R2 0.102 0.148 0.139 0.107 -0.007 -0.004 -0.015 Coefficients 0.004 (0.017) Los Angeles PD (0.007) (0.006) (0.012) Observations 7623 42848 53816 8550 Adjusted R2 0.187 0.228 0.173 0.204 *0.047 *0.061 -0.003 Oakland PD Coefficients 0.014 (0.036) (0.016) (0.020) (0.040) Observations 953 3719 1957 911 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 88 Regression Statistics for Discretionary-Search Discovery Rates by Race/Ethnicity Agency Statistic Asian Black Hispanic Other Adjusted R2 0.155 0.165 0.171 0.138 *-0.073 **-0.049 -0.083 Coefficients 0.013 (0.043) Orange CO SO (0.026) (0.012) (0.034) Observations 3807 3924 6981 3843 Adjusted R2 0.156 0.160 0.143 0.156 0.065 Coefficients -0.084 -0.031 -0.112 Riverside CO SO (0.054) (0.037) (0.022) (0.058) Observations 896 1121 1978 917 Adjusted R2 0.170 0.179 0.162 0.169 0.018 Coefficients -0.016 0.000 -0.005 Sacramento CO SD (0.025) (0.010) (0.013) (0.022) Observations 4139 7136 5503 4256 Adjusted R2 0.109 0.114 0.106 0.111 0.012 Coefficients -0.029 -0.018 -0.033 Sacramento PD (0.026) (0.011) (0.014) (0.025) Observations 3782 10435 6165 3757 Adjusted R2 0.080 0.102 0.084 0.086 0.005 Coefficients *-0.027 *-0.021 -0.005 San Bernardino CO SO (0.029) (0.009) (0.007) (0.019) Observations 8908 12720 17134 9210 Adjusted R2 0.126 0.151 0.128 0.127 0.032 -0.011 -0.022 Coefficients 0.069 (0.058) San Diego CO SO (0.029) (0.015) (0.035) Observations 2723 3039 4369 2814 Adjusted R2 0.066 0.063 0.086 0.069 0.004 Coefficients 0.026 0.018 -0.011 San Diego PD (0.030) (0.018) (0.017) (0.027) Observations 5657 9395 10394 5613 Adjusted R2 0.105 0.119 0.113 0.106 0.029 Coefficients 0.009 0.039 -0.025 San Francisco PD (0.038) (0.019) (0.021) (0.034) Observations 1606 3186 2361 1694 Adjusted R2 0.146 0.164 0.155 0.150 -0.017 -0.019 0.013 San Jose PD Coefficients 0.017 (0.047) (0.041) (0.026) (0.055) Observations 892 957 2505 811 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 89 Regression Statistics for Discretionary-Search Discovery Rates by Race/Ethnicity Agency Statistic Asian Black Hispanic Other Adjusted R2 0.098 0.096 0.108 0.082 Notes. For a full description of the methodology, please see Appendix C.3. Each set of model statistics for a particular agency and race/ethnicity corresponds to a single regression test. Each model only contained a single racial/ethnic group of color and White individuals; White individuals were the reference group for all analyses. “Overall” refers to all agencies combined while “Municipal” excludes CHP. Asterisks represent level of significance for adjusted p values using the Benjamini- Hochberg Procedure for multiple comparisons *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05. Coefficients; estimate (standard error). Observations represent the number of stops analyzed by the statistical model. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 90 D.2.3 Discovery Rates during Stops with Administrative Searches Regression Statistics for Administrative-Search Discovery Rates by Race/Ethnicity Agency Statistic Asian Black Hispanic Other -0.015 -0.003 ***-0.013 **-0.025 Coefficients Overall (0.009) (0.004) (0.003) (0.007) Observations 42337 73072 101814 43948 Adjusted R2 0.177 0.159 0.183 0.171 -0.004 -0.003 **-0.031 Coefficients 0.002 (0.012) Municipal (0.005) (0.004) (0.009) Observations 30100 56928 70706 31173 Adjusted R2 0.163 0.147 0.152 0.155 -0.075 -0.017 0.062 Coefficients 0.014 (0.191) Bakersfield PD (0.039) (0.030) (0.108) Observations 591 906 1281 624 Adjusted R2 0.103 0.081 0.108 0.086 ***-0.054 **-0.023 ***-0.037 -0.020 Coefficients California Highway (0.011) (0.007) (0.005) (0.010) Patrol 12237 16144 31108 12775 Observations Adjusted R2 0.148 0.152 0.164 0.150 0.150 Coefficients -0.060 -0.035 -0.071 Davis PD (0.081) (0.045) (0.073) (0.106) Observations 261 314 355 267 Adjusted R2 0.189 0.170 0.027 0.131 -0.052 -0.024 0.055 Coefficients 0.217 (0.148) Long Beach PD (0.053) (0.050) (0.101) Observations 275 596 607 279 Adjusted R2 0.052 0.014 0.126 0.066 -0.025 -0.011 -0.067 Coefficients 0.011 (0.072) Los Angeles CO SD (0.022) (0.019) (0.052) Observations 1312 2913 4148 1470 Adjusted R2 0.141 0.104 0.140 0.107 0.024 Coefficients -0.009 -0.004 -0.038 Los Angeles PD (0.021) (0.009) (0.008) (0.018) Observations 7426 19420 29051 7890 Adjusted R2 0.183 0.177 0.157 0.187 -0.007 0.040 -0.009 Oakland PD Coefficients 0.015 (0.027) (0.053) (0.024) (0.049) Observations 757 3666 2115 714 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 91 Regression Statistics for Administrative-Search Discovery Rates by Race/Ethnicity Agency Statistic Asian Black Hispanic Other Adjusted R2 0.177 0.160 0.164 0.251 0.084 Coefficients -0.142 -0.045 -0.041 Orange CO SO (0.098) (0.111) (0.059) (0.098) Observations 455 459 713 439 Adjusted R2 0.039 0.018 0.116 -0.004 -0.004 0.018 0.007 Coefficients 0.019 (0.035) Riverside CO SO (0.162) (0.059) (0.085) Observations 555 714 1232 579 Adjusted R2 -0.036 0.015 0.110 -0.031 -0.010 -0.002 -0.066 Coefficients 0.012 (0.050) Sacramento PD (0.023) (0.029) (0.044) Observations 1208 2523 1815 1246 Adjusted R2 0.166 0.094 0.094 0.124 ***-0.073 -0.019 -0.054 Coefficients 0.150 (0.059) San Bernardino CO (0.013) (0.011) (0.025) SO 4147 5804 7949 4330 Observations Adjusted R2 0.141 0.148 0.144 0.130 -0.028 -0.046 -0.004 Coefficients 0.071 (0.069) San Diego CO SO (0.036) (0.021) (0.048) Observations 1601 1799 2561 1641 Adjusted R2 0.161 0.153 0.144 0.155 -0.015 **0.035 0.008 Coefficients 0.020 (0.010) San Diego PD (0.021) (0.009) (0.019) Observations 7238 10591 12058 7358 Adjusted R2 0.115 0.106 0.116 0.115 -0.064 0.007 -0.010 Coefficients 0.004 (0.026) San Francisco PD (0.037) (0.022) (0.051) Observations 1403 2799 2225 1435 Adjusted R2 0.213 0.161 0.220 0.146 0.047 Coefficients -0.032 -0.030 -0.150 San Jose PD (0.062) (0.059) (0.033) (0.072) Observations 485 534 1175 429 Adjusted R2 0.134 0.134 0.105 0.090 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 92 Regression Statistics for Administrative-Search Discovery Rates by Race/Ethnicity Agency Statistic Asian Black Hispanic Other Notes. For a full description of the methodology, please see Appendix C.3. Each set of model statistics for a particular agency and race/ethnicity corresponds to a single regression test. Each model only contained a single racial/ethnic group of color and White individuals; White individuals were the reference group for all analyses. “Overall” refers to all agencies combined while “Municipal” excludes CHP. Asterisks represent level of significance for adjusted p values using the Benjamini- Hochberg Procedure for multiple comparisons *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05. Coefficients; estimate (standard error). Observations represent the number of stops analyzed by the statistical model. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 93 D.3 Veil of Darkness Analysis Table Regression Statistics for Veil of Darkness by Race/Ethnicity Agency Statistic Asian Black Hispanic Other 0.004 ***-0.021 ***-0.023 -0.002 Coefficients (0.002) (0.003) (0.002) (0.003) Overall Observations 148276 191844 297899 154372 Adjusted R2 0.131 0.358 0.230 0.140 0.008 ***-0.021 ***-0.018 0.006 Coefficients (0.006) (0.005) (0.004) (0.006) Municipal Observations 33777 62715 90553 34335 Adjusted R2 0.163 0.456 0.291 0.190 0.046 -0.071 -0.080 0.052 Coefficients (0.060) (0.118) (0.057) (0.061) Bakersfield PD Observations 288 385 679 306 Adjusted R2 0.130 0.137 0.066 -0.074 0.004 ***-0.021 ***-0.026 -0.002 Coefficients (0.003) (0.003) (0.003) (0.003) California Highway Patrol Observations 114499 129129 207346 120037 Adjusted R2 0.117 0.182 0.189 0.129 0.033 -0.005 0.166 -0.177 Coefficients (0.104) (0.102) (0.079) (0.088) Davis PD Observations 134 126 171 128 Adjusted R2 0.161 0.112 0.021 0.003 0.040 0.006 -0.001 0.015 Coefficients (0.037) (0.041) (0.018) (0.031) Fresno PD Observations 659 927 1903 666 Adjusted R2 0.180 0.053 0.052 0.008 0.057 -0.010 -0.016 -0.053 Coefficients (0.055) (0.042) (0.034) (0.037) Long Beach PD Observations 522 883 1158 532 Adjusted R2 0.197 0.232 0.133 0.374 -0.005 -0.031 -0.026 0.013 Coefficients (0.017) (0.022) (0.012) (0.016) Los Angeles CO SD Observations 3824 5185 8796 3497 Adjusted R2 0.359 0.345 0.181 0.255 0.004 -0.016 **-0.020 0.009 Coefficients Los Angeles PD (0.013) (0.007) (0.005) (0.014) Observations 8787 27412 43899 9473 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2022 Appendices 94 Regression Statistics for Veil of Darkness by Race/Ethnicity Agency Statistic Asian Black Hispanic Other Adjusted R2 0.077 0.470 0.214 0.188 -0.037 -0.089 0.048 0.044 Coefficients (0.123) (0.055) (0.071) (0.118) Oakland PD Observations 236 806 504 256 Adjusted R2 0.111 0.123 0.183 0.096 0.006 -0.017 -0.028 0.035 Coefficients (0.023) (0.012) (0.028) (0.020) Orange CO SO Observations 2081 1947 3039 2130 Adjusted R2 0.103 0.087 0.120 0.067 0.012 0.006 0.021 0.028 Coefficients (0.014) (0.020) (0.018) (0.018) Riverside CO SO Observations 2208 2633 4504 2245 Adjusted R2 0.148 0.276 0.293 0.173 0.004 *-0.082 -0.048 -0.040 Coefficients (0.020) (0.025) (0.026) (0.029) Sacramento CO SD Observations 1544 2828 2261 1599 Adjusted R2 0.131 0.205 0.164 0.067 0.004 -0.046 -0.030 -0.002 Coefficients (0.025) (0.018) (0.023) (0.020) Sacramento PD Observations 1966 5154 3391 2026 Adjusted R2 0.082 0.149 0.130 0.263 -0.000 0.000 0.005 -0.010 Coefficients (0.014) (0.018) (0.018) (0.017) San Bernardino CO SO Observations 3810 4961 7424 3888 Adjusted R2 0.189 0.204 0.166 0.133 0.002 0.023 -0.023 -0.063 Coefficients (0.022) (0.027) (0.028) (0.033) San Diego CO SO Observations 1606 1673 2822 1704 Adjusted R2 0.050 0.116 0.259 0.106 -0.014 -0.014 -0.009 0.029 Coefficients (0.021) (0.020) (0.019) (0.022) San Diego PD Observations 3794 5075 6555 3713 Adjusted R2 0.099 0.379 0.228 0.067 0.064 -0.029 -0.048 0.040 Coefficients San Francisco PD (0.024) (0.031) (0.031) (0.028) Observations 1770 2229 2014 1713 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 95 Regression Statistics for Veil of Darkness by Race/Ethnicity Agency Statistic Asian Black Hispanic Other Adjusted R2 0.049 0.243 0.154 0.248 0.058 0.022 -0.003 0.042 Coefficients (0.073) (0.085) (0.036) (0.068) San Jose PD Observations 546 485 1417 456 Adjusted R2 0.186 0.028 0.108 0.143 Notes. For a full description of the methodology, please see Appendix C.3. Each set of model statistics for a particular agency and race/ethnicity corresponds to a single regression test. Each model only contained a single racial/ethnic group of color and White individuals; White individuals were the reference group for all analyses. “Overall” refers to all agencies combined while “Municipal” excludes CHP. Asterisks represent level of significance for adjusted p values using the Benjamini-Hochberg Procedure for multiple comparisons: *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05. Coefficients; estimate (standard error). Observations represent the number of stops analyzed by the statistical model. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 96 D.4 Use of Force Analysis Table Regression Statistics for Use of Force by Race/Ethnicity Agency Statistic Asian Black Hispanic Other ***0.796 Coefficients ***1.319 ***1.158 ***0.823 Overall (0.055) (0.025) (0.022) (0.045) Observations 260353 504769 802035 275760 Adjusted R2 0.162 0.172 0.182 0.165 *0.873 ***1.244 ***1.163 **0.859 Coefficients Municipal (0.061) (0.025) (0.024) (0.049) Observations 136333 310086 423394 142869 Adjusted R2 0.128 0.146 0.151 0.131 1.356 1.230 2.006 Coefficients 1.076 (0.209) Bakersfield PD (0.691) (0.150) (0.507) Observations 1263 2633 4867 1475 Adjusted R2 -0.116 -0.033 0.025 -0.149 ***0.465 *1.251 0.993 0.732 Coefficients California Highway (0.147) (0.073) (0.053) (0.114) Patrol 104385 153692 303575 111135 Observations Adjusted R2 0.011 0.018 0.048 0.014 0.000 2.863 39.599 Coefficients 3.841 (0.588) Davis PD (6.992) (0.530) (1.914) Observations 232 735 800 258 Adjusted R2 -0.146 -0.236 -0.159 -0.153 0.895 1.571 1.195 Coefficients 1.380 (0.186) Long Beach PD (0.562) (0.186) (0.385) Observations 1034 3121 4279 1103 Adjusted R2 -0.005 0.025 0.096 0.024 0.611 1.134 0.631 Coefficients 1.003 (0.122) Los Angeles CO SD (0.283) (0.111) (0.250) Observations 3886 11226 17551 4238 Adjusted R2 0.012 0.104 0.137 0.022 0.812 Coefficients **1.244 *1.148 0.778 Los Angeles PD (0.139) (0.059) (0.048) (0.108) Observations 20563 92861 158490 24242 Adjusted R2 0.035 0.059 0.097 0.045 0.914 Coefficients *1.371 1.233 1.150 Oakland PD (0.247) (0.097) (0.132) (0.253) Observations 1536 11613 5426 1479 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 97 Regression Statistics for Use of Force by Race/Ethnicity Agency Statistic Asian Black Hispanic Other Adjusted R2 -0.172 0.063 -0.008 -0.128 0.553 0.966 0.916 Coefficients 1.664 (0.258) Orange CO SO (0.397) (0.143) (0.360) Observations 4110 4490 10016 4340 Adjusted R2 0.084 0.084 0.133 0.073 0.692 1.259 0.817 Coefficients 1.644 (0.304) Riverside CO SO (0.906) (0.162) (0.651) Observations 1075 2025 6821 1016 Adjusted R2 -0.149 0.034 0.120 -0.137 0.941 Coefficients ***1.279 1.193 0.789 Sacramento PD (0.134) (0.059) (0.080) (0.131) Observations 9910 29205 17484 9813 Adjusted R2 0.092 0.175 0.142 0.101 1.473 1.133 0.851 Coefficients 1.175 (0.079) San Bernardino CO (0.244) (0.070) (0.187) SO 18963 31813 50868 19572 Observations Adjusted R2 0.255 0.253 0.261 0.261 1.661 1.384 1.214 Coefficients 1.544 (0.232) San Diego CO SO (0.437) (0.134) (0.271) Observations 4843 6054 10503 5251 Adjusted R2 -0.049 -0.020 0.023 -0.034 0.803 1.135 0.866 Coefficients 1.170 (0.066) San Diego PD (0.152) (0.057) (0.116) Observations 29364 49735 59844 29950 Adjusted R2 0.151 0.161 0.165 0.153 0.536 1.043 0.742 Coefficients 1.156 (0.112) San Francisco PD (0.259) (0.132) (0.207) Observations 4549 10003 7165 4730 Adjusted R2 0.073 0.129 0.068 0.071 0.704 1.182 1.245 Coefficients 1.201 (0.240) San Jose PD (0.398) (0.169) (0.405) Observations 1081 1372 5835 1026 Adjusted R2 -0.109 -0.060 -0.023 -0.065 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 98 Regression Statistics for Use of Force by Race/Ethnicity Agency Statistic Asian Black Hispanic Other Notes. For a full description of the methodology, please see Appendix C.4. Each set of model statistics for a particular agency and race/ethnicity corresponds to a single regression test. Each model only contained a single racial/ethnic group of color and White individuals; White individuals were the reference group for all analyses. “Overall” refers to all agencies combined while “Municipal” excludes CHP. Asterisks represent level of significance for adjusted p values using the Benjamini-Hochberg Procedure for multiple comparisons: *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05. Coefficients; estimate (standard error). Observations represent the number of stops analyzed by the statistical model. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 99 APPENDIX E – WAVE 3 AND 4 BIAS-FREE POLICING POLICIES Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 100 E.1 Davis Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 101 DAVIS POLICE DEPARTMENT BIASED-BASED POLICING Policy and Procedure 2.42-A DEPARTMENT MANUAL Index as: Racial profiling Bias-Based policing Profiling Stop data collection Data collection I. POLICY The Davis Police Department is committed to providing law enforcement services to the community with due regard for the racial, cultural or other differences of those served. Police action that is biased is unlawful and alienates the public, fosters distrust of police, and undermines legitimate law enforcement efforts. Race, ethnicity or nationality, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or expression, economic status, age, cultural group, disability or affiliation with any other similar identifiable group shall not be used as the basis for providing differing levels of law enforcement service or enforcement of the law (i.e., discriminatory or bias- based policing). Furthermore, a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States is due process and equal protection under the law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Along with this right to due process and equal protection is the fundamental right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by government agents as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, it is the policy of this Department to provide law enforcement services and to enforce the law equally, fairly, objectively and without discrimination toward any individual or group. Members are charged with protecting these rights. Community members may file complaints for alleged bias-based or discriminatory policing at https://cityofdavis.org/city-hall/police-department-/how-are-we-doing/complaint-inquiry- submission/-fsiteid-1. The Department will investigate all complaints of bias-based or discriminatory policing pursuant to Policy & Procedure 1.07-A, Civilian Complaints. II. PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to increase the Department’s effectiveness as a law enforcement agency and help build mutual trust and respect with diverse groups and communities. This policy provides guidance to Department members that affirms the Davis Police Department’s commitment to providing services and enforcing laws in a professional, nondiscriminatory, fair, and equitable manner that keeps both the community and officers safe and protected. The Department recognizes that explicit and implicit bias can occur at both an individual and an institutional level and is committed to addressing and eradicating inappropriate use of biases. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 102 III. PROCEDURE A. Definitions “Age” refers to the chronological age of any individual. “Ancestry” refers to a person’s family or ethnic descent. “Behavioral Health Disabilities” refers to disabilities associated with substance-related disorders, addictive disorders, and mental disorders. “Bias-Based Policing” is conduct motivated, implicitly or explicitly, by the member’s beliefs about someone based on the person’s actual or perceived personal characteristics, i.e., race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability. For purposes of this policy, bias-based policing also includes, but is not limited to, an inappropriate reliance on actual or perceived characteristics of a person such as; language ability, skin color, genetic information, marital status, behavioral health disability, where they are located, mode of transportation, manner of dress, housing status, ancestry, medical condition, citizenship, immigration status, and other such distinguishing characteristics. “Detention or Investigatory Stop” is a seizure of a person by an officer that results from physical restraint, unequivocal verbal commands, or words or conduct by an officer that would result in a reasonable person believing that he or she is not free to leave or otherwise disregard the officer. Absent physical restraint, before a detention exists in the law, it is necessary that the person actually submits to the assertion of authority. “Disability” includes mental disability and physical disability. “Discriminatory Policing” refers to differential enforcement or non-enforcement of the law, including the selection or rejection of particular policing tactics or strategies, which has a disparate impact on individuals of a particular demographic category. “Explicit Bias or Conscious Bias” is the traditional conceptualization of bias. With explicit bias, individuals are aware of their prejudices and attitudes toward certain groups. Positive or negative preferences for a particular group are conscious. Overt racism and racist comments are examples of explicit biases. “Field interview or FI” refers to voluntary contacts during which an officer may ask questions or try to gain information about possible criminal activity, without indicating or implying that a person is not free to leave or is obligated to answer the officer’s questions. “Gender Identity” means a person’s internal, deeply-felt sense of being male, female, or something other or in-between, regardless of the sex they were assigned at birth. “Gender Expression” means an individual’s characteristics and behaviors (such as appearance, dress, mannerisms, speech patterns, and social interactions) that may be perceived as masculine or feminine. “Genetic information” means, with respect to any individual, information about any of the following: • The individual’s genetic tests. • The genetic tests of family members of the individual. • The manifestation of a disease or disorder in family members of the individual. “Genetic information” does not include information about the sex or age of any individual. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 103 “Implicit Bias or Unconscious Bias” refers to the attitudes or stereotypes that affect a person’s understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner. These biases, which encompass both favorable and unfavorable assessments, are activated involuntarily and without an individual’s awareness or intentional control. Implicit biases are different from known biases that individuals may choose to conceal. “LGBT” is a common abbreviation that refers to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community. “Mental Disability” includes, but is not limited to, all of the following: • Having any mental or psychological disorder or condition, such as intellectual disability, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, or specific learning disabilities, that limits a major life activity. • Any other mental or psychological disorder or condition not described above that requires special education or related services. • Having a record or history of a mental or psychological disorder or condition. • Being regarded or treated as having, or having had, any mental condition that makes achievement of a major life activity difficult. • Being regarded or treated as having, or having had, a mental or psychological disorder or condition that has no present disabling effect, but that may become a mental disability. “Mental disability” does not include sexual behavior disorders, compulsive gambling, kleptomania, pyromania, or psychoactive substance use disorders resulting from the current unlawful use of controlled substances or other drugs. “Physical Disability” includes, but is not limited to, all of the following: • Having any physiological disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss that does both of the following:  Affects one or more of the following body systems: neurological, immunological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory, including speech organs, cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, hemic and lymphatic, skin, and endocrine.  Limits a major life activity • Any other health impairment not described above that requires special education or related services. • Having a record or history of a disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic disfigurement, anatomical loss, or health impairment, which is known. • Being regarded or treated as having, or having had, any physical condition that makes achievement of a major life activity difficult. • Being regarded or treated as having, or having had, a disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic disfigurement, anatomical loss, or health impairment that has no present disabling effect but may become a physical disability. “Physical disability” does not include sexual behavior disorders, compulsive gambling, kleptomania, pyromania, or psychoactive substance use disorders resulting from the current unlawful use of controlled substances or other drugs. “Probable Cause to Arrest” is a set of specific facts that would lead a reasonable person to objectively believe and strongly suspect that a crime was committed by the person to be arrested. “Race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, age, sexual orientation, or military Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 104 and veteran status” includes a perception that the person has any of those characteristics or that the person is associated with a person who has, or is perceived to have, any of those characteristics. “Racial or identity profiling” is 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 nonconsensual searches of a person or any property, seizing any property, removing vehicle occupants during a traffic stop, issuing a citation, and making an arrest. (Penal Code § 13519.4). “Reasonable Suspicion to Conduct a Pat-Search” is justified if officers have a factual basis to suspect that a person is carrying a weapon, dangerous instrument, or an object that can be used as a weapon, or if the person poses a danger to the safety of the officer or others. Officers must be able to articulate specific facts that support an objectively reasonable apprehension of danger under the circumstances and not base their decision to conduct a pat search on any perceived individual characteristics. Reasonable suspicion to conduct a pat search is different than reasonable suspicion to detain. The scope of the pat search is limited only to a cursory or pat down search of the outer clothing to locate possible weapons. Once an officer realizes an object is not a weapon, or an object that cannot be used as a weapon, the officer must move on. “Reasonable Suspicion to Detain” is a set of specific facts that would lead a reasonable person with the officer’s same knowledge, training and experience to believe that a crime is occurring, had occurred in the past, or is about to occur. Reasonable suspicion to detain is also established whenever there is any violation of law. Reasonable suspicion cannot be based solely on a hunch or instinct. “Religion” includes “religious creed,” “religious observance,” “religious belief,” and “creed” which are all aspects of religious belief, observance, and practice, including religious dress and grooming practices. “Religious dress practice” shall be construed broadly to include the wearing or carrying of religious clothing, head or face coverings, jewelry, artifacts, and any other item that is part of an individual observing a religious creed. “Religious grooming practice” shall be construed broadly to include all forms of head, facial, and body hair that are part of an individual observing a religious creed. “Search” refers to an exploration or inspection of a person’s house, body, clothing, property or other intrusion on a privacy interest by a law enforcement officer for the purpose of discovering evidence of a crime or a person who is accused of a crime. “Sex” includes, but is not limited to, a person’s gender. “Gender” means sex, and includes a person’s gender identity and gender expression. “Sexual Orientation” means heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality. “Stop” generally describes “Detentions,” “Investigatory Stops” and “Vehicle Stops.” “Vehicle stop” refers to the involuntary detention of a vehicle and the person driving the vehicle or an occupant based on probable cause that the driver has committed a traffic violation, or reasonable suspicion based on specific and articulable facts that the vehicle or an occupant of the vehicle has been, is, or is about to be engaged in the commission of a crime. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 105 “Voluntary or Consensual Contacts” refers to interactions between members and community members that do not involve coercion. During the course of a voluntary contact, a community member is free to leave at any time, and is under no obligation to respond to officers’ attempts at questioning or conversation. “Voluntary Social Contacts” refers to voluntary contacts between Department members and community members that are intended to serve no specific investigative purpose. Voluntary social contacts do not include questioning about possible criminal activity, but may serve other law enforcement purposes, including building trust and developing rapport with community members. B. Bias-Based Policing Prohibited Bias-based policing is strictly prohibited. However, nothing in this policy is intended to prohibit members from considering protected characteristics in combination with credible, timely and distinct information connecting a person or people of a specific characteristic to a specific unlawful incident, or to specific unlawful incidents, specific criminal patterns or specific schemes. Members may consider relevant personal characteristics of an individual when determining whether to identify services designed for individuals with those characteristics (e.g., physical disability, behavioral crisis, homelessness, drug use, etc.) C. Religious Freedom Members shall not collect information on a person based on religious belief, practice, affiliation, national origin or ethnicity unless permitted under state or federal law regarding criminal investigations (Government Code § 8310.3). Members shall not assist federal government authorities (Government Code § 8310.3): 1. In compiling personal information about a person’s religious belief, practice, affiliation, national origin or ethnicity. 2. By investigating, enforcing or assisting with the investigation or enforcement of any requirement that a person register with the federal government based on religious belief, practice, or affiliation, or national origin or ethnicity. D. 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 (either implicit or explicit bias). 1. Members should be aware of the potential for biased-based motivations behind calls for service. 2. Members should always aim to build community trust through all actions they take, especially in response to bias-based reports. 3. Members should exhibit critical decision making, drawing on their training and awareness of implicit and explicit bias, to assess whether there is a legitimate law enforcement purpose before taking action. Absent a legal duty to act, no member is obligated to take any discretionary action where bias-based motivation is behind a call for service. 4. When taking calls and dispatching, dispatchers should collect enough information necessary to verify there is a legitimate law enforcement purpose for the call and relay information without including biased assumptions. For suspected bias-motivated calls, dispatchers may use discretion to inform the caller that a member will not respond to the call without a Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 106 legitimate basis of there being potentially criminal conduct or when there is no legitimate law enforcement purpose for responding. 5. If dispatchers assign a member to a call, they should inform the responding member(s) and the Watch Commander of any concerns with the call for service. The responding member and/or the Watch Commander may cancel the call at their discretion. E. Member Responsibility 1. Every member of this Department shall perform their duties in a fair and objective manner and is responsible for promptly reporting any suspected or known instances of bias-based policing to a supervisor. Members should, when reasonable to do so, intervene to prevent any biased-based actions by another member. 2. Members should treat all members of the public with courtesy, professionalism, and respect. Members will not use harassing, intimidating, derogatory, or prejudiced language, particularly when related to an individual’s actual or perceived protected characteristics. 3. Members will refer to all members of the public, including LGBT individuals, using the names, pronouns, and titles of respect appropriate to the individual’s gender identity as expressed or clarified by the individual. Proof of the person’s gender identity, such as an identification card, will not be required. Members should refer to attachment Policy & Procedure 2.42-AA, Definitions related to Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity for further guidance. Members will not inquire about intimate details of an individual’s sexual practices, anatomy, or gender-related medical history, except as necessary to serve valid, nondiscriminatory law enforcement objectives. 4. Reasons for Voluntary Contact a. Officers contacting a person shall be prepared to articulate sufficient reason for the contact, independent of the protected characteristics of the individual. b. To the extent that written documentation would otherwise be completed (e.g., arrest report, Field Interview (FI) card, search), the involved officer should include those facts giving rise to the officer’s reasonable suspicion or probable cause for the detention, as applicable. c. Except for required data-collection RIMS entries, nothing in this policy shall require any officer to document a voluntary contact or social contact that would not otherwise require reporting. 5. For Stops/Arrests a. 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. b. When reasonable and feasible under attendant circumstances, 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 citation disposition if relevant. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 107 c. Officers will ensure that a stop is no longer than necessary to take appropriate action for the known or suspected offense(s) and should convey the purpose of any reasonable delays. d. Officers conducting a stop and/or pat-search shall be prepared to articulate sufficient reason for the stop and or search, independent of the protected characteristics of the individual. e. Officers arresting a person shall be prepared to articulate sufficient reason for the arrest, independent of the protected characteristics of the individual. 6. Reporting of Stops a. Unless an exception applies under 11 CCR 999.227, an officer conducting a stop of a person shall collect the data elements required by 11 CCR 999.226 for every person stopped and prepare a stop data report in RIMS. When multiple officers conduct a stop, the officer with the highest level of engagement with the person shall collect the data elements and prepare the RIMS report (11 CCR 999.227). b. If multiple agencies are involved in a stop and the Davis Police Department is the primary agency, the Davis Police Department officer shall collect the data elements and prepare the stop data report in RIMS (11 CCR 999.227). c. The stop data report should be completed by the end of the officer’s shift or as soon as practicable (11 CCR 999.227). 7. No Retaliation/Discipline No member shall, in any manner, dissuade or impede any person or member from filing a complaint or reporting misconduct, nor shall any member retaliate, threaten, or harass any person or member who has alleged or reported misconduct. Any interference or allegation of retaliatory action by a member shall be immediately reported to the Deputy Chief. Interference and/or retaliation are grounds for discipline as are breaches of this policy. F. Supervisor Responsibility 1. Provide leadership, counseling, direction, and support to members as needed. 2. Lead efforts to engage individuals and groups and ensure that members are working actively to engage the community and increase public trust. 3. Monitor those individuals under their command for any behavior that may conflict with the purpose of this policy and shall handle any alleged or observed violation of this policy in accordance with department policy. 4. 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. 5. Establish and enforce the expectation that members 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 (See Rule & Regulation 7.52). 6. Discuss any issues with the involved officer and their supervisor in a timely manner. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 108 7. Initiate investigations of any actual or alleged violations of this policy (see Policy & Procedure 1.07-A). 8. Ensure that no retaliatory action is taken against any community member or member of this Department who discloses information concerning profiling and/or bias-based policing. 9. Identify training and professional development needs and opportunities. 10. Highlight areas where members are engaging appropriately and effectively and use those examples during roll call and other training opportunities. G. Administration Each year, Professional Standards shall review the efforts of the Department to prevent profiling/ bias-based policing and submit an overview, including public concerns and complaints and an analysis of stop data, to the Police Chief. It should be reviewed to identify any changes in training or operations that should be made to improve service. Supervisors shall review the annual report and discuss the results with those they are assigned to supervise. H. Training 1. Training on fair and objective policing and review of this policy should be conducted as directed by Professional Standards at least annually. 2. All sworn members and public safety dispatchers of this Department will be scheduled to attend Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST)-approved training on the subjects of racial and identity profiling, bias-based policing, and procedural justice (i.e., principled policing). Pending participation in such POST-approved training and at all times, all members of this department are encouraged to familiarize themselves with and consider racial and cultural differences among members of this community in performing their duties. 3. All members will be scheduled to attend initial implicit bias training and regularly scheduled updated training. 4. Each sworn member of this Department who received initial racial - or bias - based profiling training will thereafter be required to complete an approved refresher course every five years, or sooner if deemed necessary, in order to keep current with changing racial, identity and cultural trends (Penal Code § 13519.4(i)). 5. Dispatchers will receive periodic training in identifying biased calls and on operating procedures for how biased calls should be dispatched. I. Reporting to California Department of Justice 1. Professional Standards shall ensure that all data required by the Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding citizen complaints of racial bias against officers is collected and reported annually to DOJ (Penal Code § 13012; Penal Code § 13020). 2. The Records & Communications Manager shall ensure that all stop data required by the Department of Justice is reported annually. Darren Pytel Police Chief 6/16 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 109 Revised: 7/17 changed profiling to policing 8/18 stop data required 01/19 changes and definitions 11/19 1/2020 updated 09/20 Religions Freedom added and changes to proxy Reviewed 12/17, 05/19 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 110 E.2 Alameda County Sheriff’s Office Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 111 NUMBER: 1.19 ALAMEDA COUNTY RELATED ORDERS: General Order 5.23 SHERIFF'S OFFICE ISSUE DATE: February 5, 2004 GENERAL ORDER REVISION DATE: February 17, 2021 CHAPTER: Law Enforcement Role, SUBJECT: Bias-Based Policing / Racial Responsibilities, and Relationships Identity Profiling I. PURPOSE: To ensure that all persons coming into contact with employees of the Agency receive fair and equitable treatment. II. POLICY: Agency employees will engage only in those actions that are lawful and based on probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or some lawful articulable standard. III. DEFINITION: A. BIAS-BASED POLICING: The Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) describes bias-based policing as the unfair selection of individuals for law enforcement actions based in whole or in part on a trait common to a group, without actionable intelligence to support consideration of that trait. This includes but is not limited to race, ethnic background national origin, gender, sexual orientation/identity, religion, economic status, age, cultural group, or any other identifiable characteristics. B. CRIMINAL PROFILING: Is the legitimate practice based on articulable behaviors or characteristics that can be analyzed and evaluated. Deputies must have individualized suspicion based on articulable behavior or characteristics to stop or detain anyone. C. PENAL CODE SECTION 13519.4(e) Defines racial or identity profiling as, “for purposes of this section, is 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 person 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 nonconsensual searches of a person or any property, seizing any property, removing vehicle occupants during a traffic stop, issuing a citation, and making an arrest.” IV. ORDER: All Agency transactions or enforcement will be based on legal and articulable standards. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 112 A. Biased-Based Policing in traffic or pedestrian contacts, field contacts, asset seizure and forfeiture, or any other activities performed by the Sheriff's Office is prohibited. 1. Any member who engages in the practice of bias-based policing will be subject to disciplinary action, which may include termination from employment. 2. All personnel are required to immediately report incidents or complaints of bias- based policing to their supervisors. B. The Law Enforcement Services (LES) Contract Services Division Commander, or his/her designee, shall conduct an annual review of Agency practices, incidents, and trends and forward a report to the Sheriff. The review and report shall consist of an analysis of citizen complaints, internal complaints, and traffic study statistical survey reports. The commander shall be watchful for indicators that give the appearance of or might cause citizen concerns of bias-based policing. After having been reviewed by the Sheriff, this annual report will be reviewed at the Sheriff's Advisory Committee. The LES Contract Services Division Commander shall be responsible for taking appropriate corrective action if bias-based policing occurs or gives the appearance or indication of occurring within the Agency. C. All personnel transacting business or enforcement activities with the public shall receive training in accordance with the Commission on Police Officer Standards and Training (P.O.S.T.), and by the California Code of Regulations (CCR section 1081) Minimum Standards for Legislatively Mandated Courses. D. The Commanding Officer of the Regional Training Center (RTC) shall develop and provide training required by POST and any other training deemed relevant to ensure the fair and equitable treatment of the public. In an effort to ensure that all aspects of bias- based policing are addressed and current the RTC will consult with POST, the Sheriff's Office Training Committee, and the Alameda County Law Enforcement Training Managers Association (ACLETMA). E. Additional training will be conducted annually in accordance with CALEA standards. The annual CALEA required training will be conducted via a training bulletin. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 113 E.3 Kern County Sheriff’s Office Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 114 Kern County Sheriff’s Office Policies and Procedures TITLE: BIAS BASED POLICING NO: J-2300 APPROVED: Donny Youngblood, Sheriff-Coroner EFFECTIVE: REVIEWED: REVISED: UPDATED: January 01, 2021 09/16/2020 09/16/2020 09/16/2020 INTRODUCTION There has been a growing national perception that law enforcement action is often based on racial stereotypes or "racial profiling." In order to address this perception in California, the State legislature has enacted statutes mandating additional training for all California law enforcement officers on "racial, identity, and cultural differences and development of effective, non- combative methods of carrying out law enforcement duties in a diverse racial, identity and cultural environment. (See Penal Code Section 13519.4(a). Also see California Penal Code 13519.4(f) which prohibits racial profiling by law enforcement officers). The State of California passed Assembly Bill 953 in 2015. AB 953, known as the Racial and Identity Profiling Act of 2015 (RIPA), requires the reporting of detailed data regarding all stops, which AB 953 defines as a detention or search, including a consensual search, to the California Department of Justice. The data elements collected and reported will include but not be limited to the circumstances surrounding the personal contact and perceived information regarding the person being contacted. Discriminatory conduct based on race, religion, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, or disability while performing any law enforcement activity is prohibited. All law enforcement contacts and activities, including, but not limited to, calls for service, investigations, law enforcement-initiated stops or detentions, and activities following stops or detentions, shall be unbiased and based on legitimate, articulable facts. All law enforcement action taken shall be consistent with the standards of reasonable suspicion or probable cause as required by federal and state law. Failure to comply with this policy is counterproductive to professional law enforcement and is an act of misconduct, which is subject to discipline. Any employee who becomes aware of biased policing or any other violation of this policy shall report it in accordance with established policy and procedure. DEFINITIONS: Bias-based policing - An inappropriate reliance on characteristics such as race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, economic status, age, cultural group, disability or affiliation with any non-criminal group (protected characteristics) as the basis for providing differing law enforcement service or enforcement (Penal Code § 13519.4). J-2300-1 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 115 Detention means a seizure of a person’s body by an officer that results from physical restraint, unequivocal verbal commands, or words or conduct by an officer that would result in a reasonable person believing that he or she is not free to leave or otherwise disregard the officer. Encounter means a detention or traffic stop where the officer initiates activity based solely on the officer's own observations or the observations and direction of another officer, rather than on information provided by dispatch or reported by a member of the public. Gender Identity means an individual's actual or perceived gender identity, or gender-related characteristics intrinsically related to an individual's gender or gender-identity, regardless of the individual's assigned sex at birth. Location means the address where the Encounter occurred, or the closest address or intersection thereto. Officer means a peace officer as defined by Section 830 of the Penal Code, employed by the Kern County Sheriff’s Office. Traffic Stop means an interaction between an officer and an individual driving a vehicle, in which the officer orders the individual to stop the vehicle. Use of Force means an officer's use of force on an individual that is required to be reported by department policy section F-0100. Search means a search of a person’s body or property in the person’s possession or control and includes a pat-down search of a person’s outer clothing as well as a consensual search. Stop means any detention by an officer of a person or any officer interaction with a person in which the officer conducts a search. Consensual search means any search that occurs when a person gives an officer consent or permission to search the person or the person’s property. Consent can be given in writing or verbally or may be implied by conduct. POLICY Discriminatory conduct, based on race, religion, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, or disability while performing any law enforcement activity is prohibited. All law enforcement contacts and activities, including, but not limited to, calls for service, investigations, law enforcement-initiated stops or detentions, and J-2300-2 EFFECTIVE: REVIEWED: REVISED: UPDATED: January 01, 2021 09/16/2020 09/16/2020 09/16/2020 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 116 activities following stops or detentions, shall be unbiased and based on legitimate, articulable facts. Bias-based policing undermines legitimate law enforcement efforts and may lead to claims of civil rights violations. Bias-based policing alienates the community, fosters community distrust of law enforcement, and invites media scrutiny, legislative action and judicial intervention. The Kern County Sheriff’s Office neither condones nor tolerates the use of bias-based policing. All law enforcement action taken shall be consistent with the standards of reasonable suspicion or probable cause as required by federal and state law. Deputies should be familiar with the following concepts related to bias-based policing: • Racial or Identity Profiling: 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. Such activities include, but are not limited to, traffic or pedestrian stops, or actions taken during a stop, such as asking questions, frisks, consensual and nonconsensual searches of a person or any property, seizing any property, removing vehicle occupants during a traffic stop, issuing a citation, and making an arrest. • Implicit Bias: the attitudes or stereotypes that affect a person’s understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner. These biases, which encompass both favorable and unfavorable assessments, are activated involuntarily and without an individual’s awareness or intentional control. Implicit biases are different from known biases that individuals may choose to conceal. • Bias by Proxy: when an individual calls/contacts the police and makes false or ill- informed claims of misconduct about persons they dislike or are biased against based on explicit racial and identity profiling or implicit bias. When the police act on a request for service based on unlawful bias, they risk perpetuating the caller’s bias. Sworn and civilian staff should use their critical decision-making skills, drawing upon their training to assess whether there is criminal conduct. Encounters with the Public: Deputies may not use race, religion, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, or disability (to any extent or degree) while conducting any law enforcement activity, including stops and detentions, except when engaging in the J-2300-3 EFFECTIVE: REVIEWED: REVISED: UPDATED: January 01, 2021 09/16/2020 09/16/2020 09/16/2020 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 117 investigation of appropriate suspect-specific activity to identify a particular person or group. Department personnel seeking one or more specific persons who have been identified or described in part by their race, religion, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, or disability may rely in part on the specified identifier or description only in combination with other appropriate identifying factors and may not give the specified identifier or description undue weight. If multiple agencies are involved in a stop and the Kern County Sheriff's Office is the primary agency, the Kern County Sheriff's Office deputy shall collect the data elements and prepare the stop data report. The primary agency is the agency with investigative jurisdiction based on local, county, or state law or applicable interagency agreement or memoranda of understanding. If there is uncertainty as to the primary agency, the agencies shall agree on which agency is the primary agency for reporting purposes. (11 CCR 999.227). Circumstances in Which Characteristics of an Individual May Be Considered: Deputies may not use, to any extent or degree, actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation or gender identity in conducting stops or detentions, or activities following stops or detentions except when engaging in the investigation of appropriate suspect specific activity to identify a particular person or group. Department personnel seeking one or more specific persons who have been identified or described in part by any actual or perceived characteristic may rely on them in part only in combination with other appropriate identifying factors. The actual or perceived characteristics should not be given undue weight. DIRECTIVE A Data Collection and Reporting: The following information will be collected for each stop: • Date/Time/Duration • Location • Reason • Responding to Call for Service? Yes/No • Actions taken during stop, including, but not limited to: Whether asked for consent search / Whether consent was provided o Whether search took place / Basis for search / Result of search o Whether property was seized / Type of property / Basis for seizure o Curbside detention, handcuffed/flex-cuffed, firearm pointed at person, firearm o discharged or used J-2300-4 EFFECTIVE: REVIEWED: REVISED: UPDATED: January 01, 2021 09/16/2020 09/16/2020 09/16/2020 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 118 Includes: Action taken based on individual suspicion or personal characteristics o during traffic control, crowd control, underage drinking detentions, DUI checkpoints. • Result or Disposition (e.g. warning, citation, arrest) This includes the language of the warning or offense cited/charged o • Perceived race/gender/age This information shall not be requested o Vehicle Stops: Only applies to driver, unless actions above are taken for o passenger Optional: LGBT, Limited to no English Fluency, Disability o • Officer Information Years of Experience o Type of Assignment: Patrol, Traffic, Narcotics, Investigations, etc. o CAD/Badge o • Not Reportable/Deputies need not complete a RIPA report based on the following interactions: Stops that occur during public safety mass evacuations; o Stops that occur during an active shooter incident; o Stops or searches that occur during or as a result of routine security screenings o required of all persons to enter a building, school or special event, including metal detector screenings and any secondary searches that result from that screening; Interactions with passenger(s) of traffic stops who are not the subject of an investigation o or enforcement action and who are not searched; Interactions with the targeted subject(s) of a warrant, search condition, home detention, o or house arrest while in their residence; or, Consensual encounters that do not result in a search. o Incidents that occur with a subject who is currently in custody within a o custodial facility. • The following are reportable only if the officer takes specific actions listed under “Actions taken by officer during stop”: When officers are executing warrants or search conditions, or on home detention o or house arrest assignments, they need only report stops of people in the home who are not the subject of the warrant, etc. and only if the officer takes any of the following actions against the person: handcuffs or flex cuffs them; arrests them; points a firearm at them; discharges or uses a firearm; uses an electronic control device, impact projectile, baton or other impact weapon, or chemical spray on the person; or a K-9 canine bit/held the person. Traffic control of vehicles due to a traffic accident or emergency situation that o requires that vehicles are stopped for public safety purposes; J-2300-5 EFFECTIVE: REVIEWED: REVISED: UPDATED: January 01, 2021 09/16/2020 09/16/2020 09/16/2020 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 119 Any type of crowd control in which pedestrians are made to remain in a location or o routed to a different location for public safety purposes; Interactions during which persons are detained at a residence only so that deputies o may check for proof of age for purposes of investigating underage drinking; Checkpoints or roadblocks in which a deputy detains a person as the result of a o blanket regulatory activity or neutral formula that is not based on individualized suspicion or personal characteristics. • Stops of students in a K-12 public school are subject to different reporting requirements: Only the following interactions with students are subject to stop data reporting o requirements (SRO Deputies):  (1) an interaction resulting in temporary custody, citation, arrest, permanent seizure of property as evidence of a criminal offense, or referral to a school administrator because of suspected criminal activity;  (2) an interaction in which a student is questioned to investigate whether they committed any violation of law, including offenses listed under Education Code section 48900 and including truancy; and  (3) any interaction in which an officer takes any of the actions provided under the category of information entitled “Actions taken by officer during stop,” excluding “none” and excluding searches applied using a neutral formula. The data collected for each stop is the responsibility of a single deputy on scene. The data will be reported and submitted for supervisorial approval. The Kern County Sheriff’s Office will maintain all “Stop Data” and prepare an annual report to the California Department of Justice in compliance with AB 953. DIRECTIVE B Failure to comply with this policy is counterproductive to professional law enforcement and is an act of misconduct, which is subject to discipline. Any employee who becomes aware of biased policing or any other violation of this policy shall report it in accordance with established policy and procedure. DIRECTIVE C All investigative detentions, temporary detentions, vehicle stops, arrests, searches and seizures of persons or property by deputies will be based on a standard of reasonable suspicion or probable cause as required by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, statutory authority and prevailing case law. Deputies must be able to articulate specific facts, circumstances and conclusions which support reasonable suspicion or probable cause for an arrest, vehicle stop or investigative detention. J-2300-6 EFFECTIVE: REVIEWED: REVISED: UPDATED: January 01, 2021 09/16/2020 09/16/2020 09/16/2020 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 120 Deputies may take into account as part of a description the race, ethnic background, gender, sexual orientation, religion, economic status, age and/or culture of a specific suspect(s) based on credible, reliable, relevant information that links a person to a particular criminal incident or links a specific series of crimes in an area to a group of individuals. Except as provided above, no person shall be singled out or otherwise treated differently on account of his/her race, ethnic background, gender, sexual orientation, religion, economic status, age and/or culture. DIRECTIVE D This policy allows consensual encounters, but officers should apply the principles outlined below. In an effort to prevent inappropriate perceptions of biased based law enforcement, deputies shall utilize the following strategies when involved in any pedestrian contact or vehicle stop: • Be courteous, polite and professional. • Introduce yourself by providing your name and agency affiliation. As soon as practical, explain the reason(s) for the stop, i.e. in vehicle stops, provide this information before asking the driver for his/her license, registration and proof of insurance. • Answer any questions the member of the public may have, including explaining options for the disposition of a traffic citation, if relevant. • Ensure that the length of the detention is no longer than necessary to take appropriate action for the known or suspected offense. DIRECTIVE E Training on fair and objective policing and review of this policy shall be conducted as directed by the Training Section. • All sworn members of this department will be scheduled to attend Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST)-approved training on the subject of bias-based policing. • Each sworn member of this department who received initial bias-based policing training will thereafter be required to complete an approved refresher course every five years, or sooner if deemed necessary, in order to keep current with changing racial, identity and cultural trends (Penal Code § 13519.4(i)). J-2300-7 EFFECTIVE: REVIEWED: REVISED: UPDATED: January 01, 2021 09/16/2020 09/16/2020 09/16/2020 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 121 E.4 Los Angeles World Airport Police Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 122 5/8.8 Racial Profiling The City of Los Angeles prohibits discriminatory conduct on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability. This also applies while conducting law enforcement activities. Police initiated stops or detentions, and activities following stops or detentions shall be unbiased and based on legitimate, articulable facts, consistent with the standards of reasonable suspicion or probable cause as required by federal and state law. Definition Racial Profiling - Defined as the interdiction, detention, arrest, or other nonconsensual treatment of an individual based on race, color, ethnicity or national origin. A. Policy: Los Angeles World Airports Police officers may not use race, color, ethnicity, or national origin, to any extent or degree, in conducting stops or detentions, or activities following stops or detentions, except when engaging in the investigation of appropriate suspect-specific activity to identify a particular person or group. LAWA Police seeking one or more specific persons who have been identified or described in part by their race, color, ethnicity, or national origin, may rely on race, color, ethnicity, or national origin only in combination with other appropriate identifying factors and may not give race, color, ethnicity, or national origin undue weight. Failure to comply with this policy is a violation of an individual’s constitutional rights. It is also counterproductive to professional law enforcement, amounts to racial profiling, and is considered to be an act of serious misconduct. Any employee who becomes aware of racial profiling or any other violation of this policy shall report it in accordance with established procedures. B. Training All sworn personnel shall attend POST mandated training in racial profiling. C. Policy: It is the policy of the Los Angeles World Airports Police Division that undocumented resident status, in itself, is not a matter for police action. It is incumbent upon all employees of the Los Angeles World Airports Police Division to make a personal commitment to equal enforcement of the law and service to the community we serve, regardless of resident status. Procedures: 1. Officers shall not initiate police action with the objective of discovering the resident status of an individual 2. Notify ICE of any arrest involving an undocumented resident. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 123 3. A subject of an ICE hold/detainer will not be held in criminal custody once they are eligible for release. • All criminal charges against the individual have been dropped or dismissed • The individual has been acquitted of all criminal charges filed against him or her • The individual has posted a bond, or • The individual is otherwise eligible for release under state or local law, or local policy. 4. Notify the LAPD area detectives, when the individual is booked, they are subject of an ice hold/detainer. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 124 E.5 Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 125 BIAS-FREE POLICING GENERAL ORDER #17.12 Adopted: 3/26/2021 Updated: 3/26/2021 Replaces: New Reviewed: 3/26/2021 Number of Pages: 2 Distribution: Unrestricted ****************************************************************************** POLICY The Sheriff's Office is committed to providing services and enforcing laws in a professional, non- discriminatory, impartial, and equitable manner that keeps both the community and deputies safe and protected. The intent of this policy is to increase the Sheriff's Office effectiveness as a law enforcement agency and to build mutual trust and respect with the diverse groups and communities of Santa Clara County. It is the policy of the Sheriff's Office to provide law enforcement services and to enforce the law equally, fairly, objectively, and without discrimination toward any individual or group. The Sheriff's Office expressly prohibits racial and identity profiling (Pen. Code § 13519.4). All employees of the Sheriff's Office are prohibited from taking law enforcement actions, including the use of force, based on actual or perceived personal characteristics, including but not limited to race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, political affiliation, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, mental and or physical disability. All employees of the Sheriff's Office shall rely on their training and experience when engaging in the investigation of appropriate suspect specific activity to identify a particular person or group. Personnel must not delay or deny policing services based on an individual's actual or perceived personally identifying characteristics. All employees should draw upon their training and use their critical decision- making skills to assess whether there is criminal conduct and to be aware of personal implicit bias and bias by proxy when carrying out their duties. BIAS-BASED POLICING PROHIBITED Bias-based policing is strictly prohibited. However, nothing in this policy is intended to prohibit a deputy from considering protected characteristics in combination with credible, timely and distinct Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 126 information connecting a person or people of a specific characteristic to a specific unlawful incident, or to specific unlawful incidents, specific criminal patterns or specific schemes. A. DEFINITIONS Racial or Identity Profiling: The consideration of, or reliance on, to any degree, actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, political affiliation, 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 nonconsensual searches of a person or any property, seizing any property, removing vehicle occupants during a traffic stop, issuing a citation, and making an arrest. Bias-Based Policing: conduct by peace officers motivated, implicitly or explicitly, by the deputy's beliefs about someone based on the person's actual or perceived personal characteristics, i.e., race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability. Explicit Bias: Conscious belief or attitude toward a specific social group or person that may lead an individual to act in discriminatory ways. Implicit Bias: the attitudes or stereotypes that affect a person's understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner. These biases, which encompass both favorable and unfavorable assessments, are activated involuntarily and without an individual's awareness or intentional control. Implicit biases are different from known biases that individuals may choose to conceal. Bias by Proxy: when an individual calls/contacts the police and makes false or ill-informed claims of misconduct about persons they dislike or are biased against based on explicit racial and identity profiling or implicit bias. When the police act on a request for service based in unlawful bias, they risk perpetuating the caller's bias. Sworn and civilian staff should use their critical decision-making skills, drawing upon their training to assess whether there is criminal conduct. B. CALIFORNIA RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT Employees shall not collect information from a person based on religious belief, practice, affiliation, national origin, or ethnicity unless permitted under state or federal law (Government Code § 8310.3). Employees shall also not assist federal government authorities (Government Code § 8310.3): 1. In compiling personal information about a person's religious belief, practice, affiliation, national origin, or ethnicity. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 127 2. By investigating, enforcing, or assisting with the investigation or enforcement of any requirement that a person register with the federal government based on religious belief, practice, or affiliation, or national origin or ethnicity. C. THE RACIAL AND IDENTITY PROFILING ACT (RIPA) / STOP DATA Unless an exception applies under 11 CCR 999.227, a deputy conducting a stop of a person shall collect the data elements required by 11 CCR 999.226 for every person stopped and prepare a stop data report. When multiple deputies conduct a stop, the deputy with the highest level of engagement with the person shall collect the data elements and prepare the report (11 CCR 999.227). If multiple agencies are involved in a stop and the Sheriff's Office is the primary agency, the Sheriff's Office deputy shall collect the data elements and prepare the stop data report (11 CCR 999.227). The stop data report should be completed by the end of the deputy's shift or as soon as practicable. It must; however, be submitted within 24 hours of the stop (11 CCR 999.227). D. EMPLOYEE RESPONSIBILITIES Every employee of the Sheriff's Office shall perform his/her duties in a fair, impartial, and objective manner, and is responsible for promptly reporting any suspected or known instances of bias-based policing to a supervisor. Employees should, when reasonable to do so, intervene to prevent any biased-based actions by another employee of the Sheriff's Office. E. TRAINING Training on fair and objective policing and review of this policy shall be conducted by the Training and Compliance Unit and supplemented with periodic roll-call training and discussions facilitated by supervisors. 1. All sworn personnel will be scheduled to attend Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) approved training about bias-based policing, implicit bias, and bias by proxy. 2. Each sworn member of this department who received initial bias-based policing training will thereafter be required to complete an approved refresher course every five years, or sooner if deemed necessary, to keep current with changing racial, identity and cultural trends (Penal Code § 13519.4(i)). F. REPORTING TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE The Lieutenant of the Professional Compliance Unit or his/her designee shall ensure that all data required by the California Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding complaints of racial bias against officers is collected and provided to the DOJ as required for reporting (Penal Code § 13012; Penal Code §13020). Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 128 Employees shall ensure that stop data reports are provided for required annual reporting to DOJ (Government Code § 12525.5). The Sheriff's Office Records Divisions shall be responsible for releasing the annual data to the DOJ consistent with existing record release procedures. LAURIE SMITH SHERIFF Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 129 E.6 Stockton Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 130 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 131 E.7 Anaheim Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 132 Policy Anaheim Police Department 401 Anaheim PD Policy Manual Bias-Based Policing 401.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE This policy provides guidance to department members that affirms the Anaheim Police Department's commitment to policing that is fair and objective. Nothing in this policy prohibits the use of specified characteristics in law enforcement activities designed to strengthen the department's relationship with its diverse communities (e.g., cultural and ethnicity awareness training, youth programs, community group outreach, partnerships). 401.1.1 DEFINITIONS Definitions related to this policy include: Bias-based policing - An inappropriate reliance on characteristics such as race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, economic status, age, cultural group, disability or affiliation with any non-criminal group (protected characteristics) as the basis for providing differing law enforcement service or enforcement (Penal Code § 13519.4). 401.2 POLICY The Anaheim Police Department is committed to providing law enforcement services to the community with due regard for the racial, cultural or other differences of those served. It is the policy of this department to provide law enforcement services and to enforce the law equally, fairly, objectively and without discrimination toward any individual or group. 401.3 BIAS-BASED POLICING PROHIBITED Bias-based policing is strictly prohibited. However, nothing in this policy is intended to prohibit an officer from considering protected characteristics in combination with credible, timely and distinct information connecting a person or people of a specific characteristic to a specific unlawful incident, or to specific unlawful incidents, specific criminal patterns or specific schemes. 401.3.1 CALIFORNIA RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT Members shall not collect information from a person based on religious belief, practice, affiliation, national origin or ethnicity unless permitted under state or federal law (Government Code § 8310.3). Members shall not assist federal government authorities (Government Code § 8310.3): (a) In compiling personal information about a person’s religious belief, practice, affiliation, national origin or ethnicity. (b) By investigating, enforcing or assisting with the investigation or enforcement of any requirement that a person register with the federal government based on religious belief, practice, or affiliation, or national origin or ethnicity. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/08/27, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Policing - 310 Published with permission by Anaheim Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 133 Anaheim Police Department Anaheim PD Policy Manual Bias-Based Policing 401.4 MEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES Every member of this department shall perform his/her duties in a fair and objective manner and is responsible for promptly reporting any suspected or known instances of bias-based policing to a supervisor. Members should, when reasonable to do so, intervene to prevent any biased-based actions by another member. 401.4.1 REASON FOR CONTACT Officers contacting a person shall be prepared to articulate sufficient reason for the contact, independent of the protected characteristics of the individual. To the extent that written documentation would otherwise be completed (e.g., arrest report, field interview (FI) card), the involved officer should include those facts giving rise to the contact, as applicable. Except for required data-collection forms or methods, nothing in this policy shall require any officer to document a contact that would not otherwise require reporting. 401.4.2 REPORTING OF STOPS The reporting requirements under this section will take effect on January 1, 2021. Unless an exception applies under 11 CCR 999.227, an officer conducting a stop of a person shall collect the data elements required by 11 CCR 999.226 for every person stopped and prepare a stop data report. When multiple officers conduct a stop, the officer with the highest level of engagement with the person shall collect the data elements and prepare the report (11 CCR 999.227). If multiple agencies are involved in a stop and the Anaheim Police Department is the primary agency, the Anaheim Police Department officer shall collect the data elements and prepare the stop data report (11 CCR 999.227). The stop data report should be completed by the end of the officer’s shift or as soon as practicable (11 CCR 999.227). 401.5 SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILITIES Supervisors should monitor those individuals under their command for compliance with this policy and shall handle any alleged or observed violations in accordance with the Personnel Complaints Policy. (a) Supervisors should discuss any issues with the involved officer and his/her supervisor in a timely manner. 1. Supervisors should document these discussions, in the prescribed manner. (b) Supervisors should periodically review BWC recordings, portable audio/video recordings, Mobile Digital Computer (MDC) data and any other available resource used to document contact between officers and the public to ensure compliance with the policy. 1. Supervisors should document these periodic reviews. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/08/27, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Policing - 311 Published with permission by Anaheim Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 134 Anaheim Police Department Anaheim PD Policy Manual Bias-Based Policing 2. Recordings or data that capture a potential instance of bias-based policing should be appropriately retained for administrative investigation purposes. (c) Supervisors shall initiate investigations of any actual or alleged violations of this policy. (d) Supervisors should take prompt and reasonable steps to address any retaliatory action taken against any member of this department who discloses information concerning bias-based policing. 401.6 TRAINING Training on fair and objective policing and review of this policy should be conducted as directed by the Training Detail. (a) All sworn members of this department will be scheduled to attend Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST)-approved training on the subject of bias-based policing. (b) Pending participation in such POST-approved training and at all times, all members of this department are encouraged to familiarize themselves with and consider racial and cultural differences among members of this community. (c) Each sworn member of this department who received initial bias-based policing training will thereafter be required to complete an approved refresher course every five years, or sooner if deemed necessary, in order to keep current with changing racial, identity and cultural trends (Penal Code § 13519.4(i)). 401.7 REPORTING TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE The reporting requirements under this section will take effect on January 1, 2021. The Internal Affairs Detail Manager shall ensure that all data required by the California Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding complaints of racial bias against officers is collected and provided to the Records Manager for required reporting to the DOJ (Penal Code § 13012; Penal Code § 13020). See the Records Section Policy. Supervisors should ensure that data stop reports are provided to the Records Manager for required annual reporting to the DOJ (Government Code § 12525.5) (See Records Bureau Policy). Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/08/27, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Policing - 312 Published with permission by Anaheim Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 134 E.8 Berkeley Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 136 Policy Berkeley Police Department 401 Law Enforcement Services Manual Fair and Impartial Policing 401.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE This policy is intended to reaffirm the commitment of the Berkeley Police Department to fair and impartial policing; to clarify the circumstances in which officers can consider race, ethnicity and other demographics; and to reinforce procedures that serve to assure the public that we are providing service and enforcing laws in an equitable way. California Penal Code Section 13519.4(e) prohibits racial profiling by law enforcement officers. This policy explicitly prohibits racial profiling and other biased policing. This policy describes the limited circumstances in which members can consider race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation/identity or socio-economic status in making law enforcement decisions. 401.1.1 DEFINITIONS Definitions related to this policy include: Bias-based policing -Any police-initiated action that relies on the race, ethnicity or national origin rather than the behavior of an individual or information that leads the police to a particular individual who has been identified as being engaged in criminal activity. 401.2 POLICY Investigative detentions, traffic stops, arrests, searches and property seizures by officers will be based on a standard of reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Officers must be able to articulate specific facts and circumstances that support reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Officers shall not consider race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation/ identity or socio-economic status in establishing either reasonable suspicion or probable cause, or when carrying out other law enforcement activities except when officers are: (a) Seeking specific person(s) who have been described in part by any of the above listed characteristics, or (b) The person(s) are being sought for a specific law enforcement purpose. Discrimination or harassment based on a trait or class described above is considered a "serious allegation" of misconduct. 401.3 RESPONSIBILITY TO REPORT AND TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION Employees who become aware of another employee engaging in biased policing shall adhere to reporting procedures set forth in the Discriminatory Harassment Policy. A supervisor or command officer who becomes aware of biased policing shall adhere to notification and administrative procedures set forth in the Personnel Complaints Policy. All reports of biased policing shall be investigated in accordance with the Personnel Complaints Policy. Copyright Lexipol. LLC 2020/09/17. All Rights Reserved. Fair and Impartial Policing - 1 Published with permission by Berkeley Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 137 Berkeley Police Department Law Enforcement Services Manual Fair and Impartial Policing 401.4 REPORTING TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall ensure that all data required by the California Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding complaints of racial bias against officers is collected and reported annually to the DOJ (Penal Code § 13012; Penal Code § 13020). 401.4.1 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA PROCEDURES All sworn officers shall provide demographic statistical data once for each individual as listed below: (a) All vehicle and bicycle detentions. (b) All pedestrian detentions (c) Anytime anyone is detained, regardless of the cause (d) Anytime anyone is searched regardless of the cause. Officers shall provide demographic statistical data pursuant to the requirements of the RIPA statute, AB 953. 401.5 ADMINISTRATION Each year, the Operations Division Captain shall review the efforts of the Department to prevent racial or biased based profiling and submit an overview, including public concerns and complaints, to the Chief of Police. The annual report should not contain any identifying information about any specific complaint, member of the public or officers. It should be reviewed by the Chief of Police to identify any changes in training or operations that should be made to improve service. Supervisors should review the annual report and discuss the results with those they are assigned to supervise. 401.6 TRAINING Training on racial or bias-based profiling and review of this policy should be conducted as directed by the Personnel and Training Bureau. (a) All sworn members of this department will be scheduled to attend Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST)-approved training on the subject of racial or bias- based profiling. (b) Pending participation in such POST-approved training and at all times, all members of this department are encouraged to familiarize themselves with and consider racial and cultural differences among members of this community. (c) Each sworn member of this department who received initial racial or bias-based profiling training will thereafter be required to complete an approved refresher course every five years, or sooner if deemed necessary, in order to keep current with changing racial, identity and cultural trends (Penal Code§ 13519.4(i)). Copyright Lexipol. LLC 2020/09/17, All Rights Reserved Fair and Impartial Policing - 2 Published with permission by Berkeley Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 138 E.9 Cotati Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 139 Policy Cotati Police Department 402 Cotati PD Policy Manual Bias-Based Policing 402.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE This policy provides guidance to department members that affirms the Cotati Police Department's commitment to policing that is fair and objective. Nothing in this policy prohibits the use of specified characteristics in law enforcement activities designed to strengthen the department's relationship with its diverse communities (e.g., cultural and ethnicity awareness training, youth programs, community group outreach, partnerships). 402.1.1 DEFINITIONS Definitions related to this policy include: Bias-based policing - An inappropriate reliance on actual or perceived characteristics such as race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, economic status, age, cultural group, disability, or affiliation with any non-criminal group (protected characteristics) as the basis for providing differing law enforcement service or enforcement (Penal Code § 13519.4). 402.2 POLICY The Cotati Police Department is committed to providing law enforcement services to the community with due regard for the racial, cultural or other differences of those served. It is the policy of this department to provide law enforcement services and to enforce the law equally, fairly, objectively and without discrimination toward any individual or group. 402.3 BIAS-BASED POLICING PROHIBITED Bias-based policing is strictly prohibited. However, nothing in this policy is intended to prohibit an officer from considering protected characteristics in combination with credible, timely and distinct information connecting a person or people of a specific characteristic to a specific unlawful incident, or to specific unlawful incidents, specific criminal patterns or specific schemes. 402.3.1 CALIFORNIA RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT Members shall not collect information from a person based on religious belief, practice, affiliation, national origin or ethnicity unless permitted under state or federal law (Government Code § 8310.3). Members shall not assist federal government authorities (Government Code § 8310.3): (a) In compiling personal information about a person’s religious belief, practice, affiliation, national origin or ethnicity. (b) By investigating, enforcing or assisting with the investigation or enforcement of any requirement that a person register with the federal government based on religious belief, practice, or affiliation, or national origin or ethnicity. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/12/11, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Policing - 286 Published with permission by Cotati Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 140 Cotati Police Department Cotati PD Policy Manual Bias-Based Policing 402.4 MEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES Every member of this department shall perform his/her duties in a fair and objective manner and is responsible for promptly reporting any suspected or known instances of bias-based policing to a supervisor. Members should, when reasonable to do so, intervene to prevent any biased-based actions by another member. 402.4.1 REASON FOR CONTACT Officers contacting a person shall be prepared to articulate sufficient reason for the contact, independent of the protected characteristics of the individual. To the extent that written documentation would otherwise be completed (e.g., arrest report, field interview (FI) card), the involved officer should include those facts giving rise to the contact, as applicable. Except for required data-collection forms or methods, nothing in this policy shall require any officer to document a contact that would not otherwise require reporting. 402.5 SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILITIES Supervisors should monitor those individuals under their command for compliance with this policy and shall handle any alleged or observed violations in accordance with the Personnel Complaints Policy. (a) Supervisors should discuss any issues with the involved officer and his/her supervisor in a timely manner. 1. Supervisors should document these discussions, in the prescribed manner. (b) Supervisors should periodically review MAV recordings, portable audio/video recordings, Mobile Digital Computer (MDC) data and any other available resource used to document contact between officers and the public to ensure compliance with the policy. 1. Supervisors should document these periodic reviews. 2. Recordings or data that capture a potential instance of bias-based policing should be appropriately retained for administrative investigation purposes. (c) Supervisors shall initiate investigations of any actual or alleged violations of this policy. (d) Supervisors should take prompt and reasonable steps to address any retaliatory action taken against any member of this department who discloses information concerning bias-based policing. 402.6 ADMINISTRATION Each year, the Operations Sergeant should review the efforts of the Department to provide fair and objective policing and submit an annual report, including public concerns and complaints, to the Chief of Police. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/12/11, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Policing - 287 Published with permission by Cotati Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 141 Cotati Police Department Cotati PD Policy Manual Bias-Based Policing The annual report should not contain any identifying information about any specific complaint, member of the public or officers. It should be reviewed by the Chief of Police to identify any changes in training or operations that should be made to improve service. Supervisors should review the annual report and discuss the results with those they are assigned to supervise. 402.7 TRAINING Training on fair and objective policing and review of this policy should be conducted as directed by the Training. (a) All sworn members of this department will be scheduled to attend Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST)-approved training on the subject of bias-based policing. (b) Pending participation in such POST-approved training and at all times, all members of this department are encouraged to familiarize themselves with and consider racial and cultural differences among members of this community. (c) Each sworn member of this department who received initial bias-based policing training will thereafter be required to complete an approved refresher course every five years, or sooner if deemed necessary, in order to keep current with changing racial, identity and cultural trends (Penal Code § 13519.4(i)). 402.8 REPORTING TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE The Lieutenant Manager shall ensure that all data required by the California Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding complaints of racial bias against officers is collected and provided to the Lieutenant for required reporting to the DOJ (Penal Code § 13012; Penal Code § 13020). See the Records Bureau Policy. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/12/11, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Policing - 288 Published with permission by Cotati Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 141 E.10 Sonoma State University Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 143 Policy Sonoma State University Police Department 401 POLICIES Bias-Based Policing 401.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE This policy provides guidance to department members that affirms the Sonoma State University Police Department's commitment to policing that is fair and objective. Nothing in this policy prohibits the use of specified characteristics in law enforcement activities designed to strengthen the department's relationship with its diverse communities (e.g., cultural and ethnicity awareness training, youth programs, community group outreach, partnerships). 401.1.1 DEFINITIONS Definitions related to this policy include: Bias-based policing - An inappropriate reliance on actual or perceived characteristics such as race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, economic status, age, cultural group, disability, or affiliation with any non-criminal group (protected characteristics) as the basis for providing differing law enforcement service or enforcement (Penal Code § 13519.4). 401.2 POLICY The Sonoma State University Police Department is committed to providing law enforcement services to the community with due regard for the racial, cultural or other differences of those served. It is the policy of this department to provide law enforcement services and to enforce the law equally, fairly, objectively and without discrimination toward any individual or group. 401.3 BIAS-BASED POLICING PROHIBITED Bias-based policing is strictly prohibited. However, nothing in this policy is intended to prohibit an officer from considering protected characteristics in combination with credible, timely and distinct information connecting a person or people of a specific characteristic to a specific unlawful incident, or to specific unlawful incidents, specific criminal patterns or specific schemes. 401.3.1 CALIFORNIA RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT Members shall not collect information from a person based on religious belief, practice, affiliation, national origin or ethnicity unless permitted under state or federal law (Government Code § 8310.3). Members shall not assist federal government authorities (Government Code § 8310.3): (a) In compiling personal information about a person’s religious belief, practice, affiliation, national origin or ethnicity. (b) By investigating, enforcing or assisting with the investigation or enforcement of any requirement that a person register with the federal government based on religious belief, practice, or affiliation, or national origin or ethnicity. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/07/12, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Policing - 1 Published with permission by Sonoma State University Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 144 Sonoma State University Police Department POLICIES Bias-Based Policing 401.4 MEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES Every member of this department shall perform his/her duties in a fair and objective manner and is responsible for promptly reporting any suspected or known instances of bias-based policing to a supervisor. Members should, when reasonable to do so, intervene to prevent any biased-based actions by another member. 401.4.1 REASON FOR CONTACT Officers contacting a person shall be prepared to articulate sufficient reason for the contact, independent of the protected characteristics of the individual. To the extent that written documentation would otherwise be completed (e.g., arrest report, field interview (FI) card), the involved officer should include those facts giving rise to the contact, as applicable. Except for required data-collection forms or methods, nothing in this policy shall require any officer to document a contact that would not otherwise require reporting. 401.4.2 REPORTING OF STOPS Unless an exception applies under 11 CCR 999.227, an officer conducting a stop of a person shall collect the data elements required by 11 CCR 999.226 for every person stopped and prepare a stop data report. When multiple officers conduct a stop, the officer with the highest level of engagement with the person shall collect the data elements and prepare the report (11 CCR 999.227). If multiple agencies are involved in a stop and the Sonoma State University Police Department is the primary agency, the Sonoma State University Police Department officer shall collect the data elements and prepare the stop data report (11 CCR 999.227). The stop data report should be completed by the end of the officer’s shift or as soon as practicable (11 CCR 999.227). 401.5 SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILITIES Supervisors should monitor those individuals under their command for compliance with this policy and shall handle any alleged or observed violations in accordance with the Personnel Complaints Policy. (a) Supervisors should discuss any issues with the involved officer and his/her supervisor in a timely manner. 1. Supervisors should document these discussions, in the prescribed manner. (b) Supervisors should periodically review MAV recordings, portable audio/video recordings, Mobile Digital Computer (MDC) data and any other available resource used to document contact between officers and the public to ensure compliance with the policy. 1. Supervisors should document these periodic reviews. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/07/12, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Policing - 2 Published with permission by Sonoma State University Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 145 Sonoma State University Police Department POLICIES Bias-Based Policing 2. Recordings or data that capture a potential instance of bias-based policing should be appropriately retained for administrative investigation purposes. (c) Supervisors shall initiate investigations of any actual or alleged violations of this policy. (d) Supervisors should take prompt and reasonable steps to address any retaliatory action taken against any member of this department who discloses information concerning bias-based policing. 401.6 REPORTING TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE The Chief of Police or designee Manager shall ensure that all data required by the California Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding complaints of racial bias against officers is collected and provided to the Lieutenant for required reporting to the DOJ (Penal Code § 13012; Penal Code § 13020). See the Records Section Policy. Supervisors should ensure that data stop reports are provided to the Lieutenant for required annual reporting to the DOJ (Government Code § 12525.5) (See Records Bureau Policy). 401.7 ADMINISTRATION Each year, the Patrol Lieutenant should review the efforts of the Department to provide fair and objective policing and submit an annual report, including public concerns and complaints, to the Chief of Police. The annual report should not contain any identifying information about any specific complaint, member of the public or officers. It should be reviewed by the Chief of Police to identify any changes in training or operations that should be made to improve service. Supervisors should review the annual report and discuss the results with those they are assigned to supervise. 401.8 TRAINING Training on fair and objective policing and review of this policy should be conducted as directed by the Training Section. (a) All sworn members of this department will be scheduled to attend Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST)-approved training on the subject of bias-based policing. (b) Pending participation in such POST-approved training and at all times, all members of this department are encouraged to familiarize themselves with and consider racial and cultural differences among members of this community. (c) Each sworn member of this department who received initial bias-based policing training will thereafter be required to complete an approved refresher course every five years, or sooner if deemed necessary, in order to keep current with changing racial, identity and cultural trends (Penal Code § 13519.4(i)). Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/07/12, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Policing - 3 Published with permission by Sonoma State University Police Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 146 E.11 Culver City Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 147 Policy Culver City Police Department 402 Culver City PD Policy Manual Bias-Based Policing 402.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE This policy provides guidance to department members that affirms the Culver City Police Department's commitment to policing that is fair and objective. Nothing in this policy prohibits the use of specified characteristics in law enforcement activities designed to strengthen the department's relationship with its diverse communities (e.g., cultural and ethnicity awareness training, youth programs, community group outreach, partnerships). 402.1.1 DEFINITIONS Definitions related to this policy include: Bias-based policing - An inappropriate reliance on actual or perceived characteristics such as race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, economic status, age, cultural group, disability, or affiliation with any non-criminal group (protected characteristics) as the basis for providing differing law enforcement service or enforcement (Penal Code § 13519.4). 402.2 POLICY The Culver City Police Department is committed to providing law enforcement services to the community with due regard for the racial, cultural or other differences of those served. It is the policy of this department to provide law enforcement services and to enforce the law equally, fairly, objectively and without discrimination toward any individual or group. 402.3 BIAS-BASED POLICING PROHIBITED Bias-based policing is strictly prohibited. However, nothing in this policy is intended to prohibit an officer from considering protected characteristics in combination with credible, timely and distinct information connecting a person or people of a specific characteristic to a specific unlawful incident, or to specific unlawful incidents, specific criminal patterns or specific schemes. 402.3.1 CALIFORNIA RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT Members shall not collect information from a person based on religious belief, practice, affiliation, national origin or ethnicity unless permitted under state or federal law (Government Code § 8310.3). Members shall not assist federal government authorities (Government Code § 8310.3): (a) In compiling personal information about a person’s religious belief, practice, affiliation, national origin or ethnicity. (b) By investigating, enforcing or assisting with the investigation or enforcement of any requirement that a person register with the federal government based on religious belief, practice, or affiliation, or national origin or ethnicity. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/01/21, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Policing - 304 Published with permission by Culver City Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 148 Culver City Police Department Culver City PD Policy Manual Bias-Based Policing 402.4 MEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES Every member of this department shall perform his/her duties in a fair and objective manner and is responsible for promptly reporting any suspected or known instances of bias-based policing to a supervisor. Members should, when reasonable to do so, intervene to prevent any biased-based actions by another member. 402.4.1 REPORTING OF STOPS In accordance with California Government Code section 12525.5(a)(2), the Culver City Police Department will begin reporting traffic stop data annually to the California Attorney General no later than April 1st, 2023. Unless an exception applies under 11 CCR 999.227, an officer conducting a stop of a person shall collect the data elements required by 11 CCR 999.226 for every person stopped and prepare a stop data report. When multiple officers conduct a stop, the officer with the highest level of engagement with the person shall collect the data elements and prepare the report (11 CCR 999.227). If multiple agencies are involved in a stop and the Culver City Police Department is the primary agency, the Culver City Police Department officer shall collect the data elements and prepare the stop data report (11 CCR 999.227). The stop data report should be completed by the end of the officer’s shift or as soon as practicable (11 CCR 999.227). 402.5 SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILITIES Supervisors should monitor those individuals under their command for compliance with this policy and shall handle any alleged or observed violations in accordance with the Personnel Complaints Policy. (a) Supervisors should discuss any issues with the involved officer and his/her supervisor in a timely manner. 1. Supervisors should document these discussions, in the prescribed manner. (b) Supervisors should periodically review MAV recordings, portable audio/video recordings, Mobile Digital Computer (MDC) data and any other available resource used to document contact between officers and the public to ensure compliance with the policy. 1. Supervisors should document these periodic reviews. 2. Recordings or data that capture a potential instance of bias-based policing should be appropriately retained for administrative investigation purposes. (c) Supervisors shall initiate investigations of any actual or alleged violations of this policy. (d) Supervisors should take prompt and reasonable steps to address any retaliatory action taken against any member of this department who discloses information concerning bias-based policing. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/01/21, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Policing - 305 Published with permission by Culver City Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 149 Culver City Police Department Culver City PD Policy Manual Bias-Based Policing 402.6 TRAINING Training on fair and objective policing and review of this policy should be conducted as directed by the Personnel and Training. (a) All sworn members of this department will attend Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST)-approved training on the subject of bias-based policing. (b) Pending participation in such POST-approved training and at all times, all members of this department are encouraged to familiarize themselves with and consider racial and cultural differences among members of this community. (c) Each sworn member of this department who received initial bias-based policing training will thereafter be required to complete an approved refresher course every five years, or sooner if deemed necessary, in order to keep current with changing racial, identity and cultural trends (Penal Code § 13519.4(i)). 402.7 REPORTING TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE The Professional Standards Unit Manager shall ensure that all data required by the California Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding complaints of racial bias against officers is collected and provided to the Records Supervisor for required reporting to the DOJ (Penal Code § 13012; Penal Code § 13020). See the Records Section Policy. Supervisors should ensure that data stop reports are provided to the Records Supervisor for required annual reporting to the DOJ (Government Code § 12525.5) (See Records Bureau Policy). Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/01/21, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Policing - 306 Published with permission by Culver City Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 149 E.12 Fresno County Sheriff’s Office Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 151 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 152 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 153 Fresno County Sheriff's Office Polley Manual Bias-Based Policing 1.e Supervisors should document these periodic reviews.e 2.e Recordings or data that capture a potential instance of bias.based policinge should be appropriate ly retained for administrative investigation purposes.e (c} Superv i sors shall initiate investigations of any actual or alleged violations of this policy.e {d) SupeN i sors should take prompt and reasonable steps to address any retaliatory actione taken against any member of this office who discioses information concerning bas·e i base<! policing. 401.6 ADMINISTRATION Each year. the Training Unit Commander should review the efforts of the Office to provide fair and objective policing and submit an annual report. induding public concerns and complaints, 10 the Sheriff. The annual report should not contain any identifying inrormation aboul any specific complaint, member of the publc or deputies. ti should be revlewe<I by !he Sheriff to identify any changes ine i training or operations that should be made to improve service. i Supervisors should review the annual report and dscuss the results with those they are assigned to supervise. 401.7 TRAINING Training on fair and objective polteing and review of this policy should be conducted as directed by the Training Unit (a} AJI sworn members of this office will be scheduled to attend Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST)-approved training on the subject of bias-based policing. {b) Pending participation in such POST-approved training and at all times, all members of this office are encouraged to familiarize themselves with and consider racial and ct.1lturat differences among members of this community. (c)e Each sworn member of this office who received initial bias-based policing lraining wille thereafter be required to complete an approved refresher course eve,y five years, ore sooner if deemed necessary, in order to keep current with changing racial. identity ande cultural trends (Penal Code§ 13519.4(i)).e 401.8 REPORTING TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE The Internal Affairs Unit Manager shall ensure that all data required by the California Department of Justice (OOJ) regarding complaints of racial bias against deputies ts collected and provided to the Records Unit Commander for required reporting to the DOJ (Penal Code § 13012; Pena le Code§ 13020). See the Records Un i t Polley.e Supervisors should ensure !hat data stop reports are provide<! to the Records Unit Commander for required annual reporting to the DOJ (Government Code§ 12525.5) (See Records Bureau Polley). Cocr,ng!'!I l.exl)QI, LL¢ 202!)'1200, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Policing• 286 P\lll1$?1ed ,,.;111 permission by Fresno County Sheriff's Office. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 154 E.13 Petaluma Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 156 Policy Petaluma Police Department 402 Policy Manual Bias-Based Policing 402.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE This policy provides guidance to department members that affirms the Petaluma Police Department's commitment to policing that is fair and objective. Nothing in this policy prohibits the use of specified characteristics in law enforcement activities designed to strengthen the department's relationship with its diverse communities (e.g., cultural and ethnicity awareness training, youth programs, community group outreach, partnerships). 402.1.1 DEFINITIONS Definitions related to this policy include: Bias-based policing - An inappropriate reliance on actual or perceived characteristics such as race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, economic status, age, cultural group, disability, or affiliation with any non-criminal group (protected characteristics) as the basis for providing differing law enforcement service or enforcement (Penal Code § 13519.4). 402.2 POLICY The Petaluma Police Department is committed to providing law enforcement services to the community with due regard for the racial, cultural or other differences of those served. It is the policy of this department to provide law enforcement services and to enforce the law equally, fairly, objectively and without discrimination toward any individual or group. 402.3 BIAS-BASED POLICING PROHIBITED Bias-based policing is strictly prohibited. However, nothing in this policy is intended to prohibit an officer from considering protected characteristics in combination with credible, timely and distinct information connecting a person or people of a specific characteristic to a specific unlawful incident, or to specific unlawful incidents, specific criminal patterns or specific schemes. 402.3.1 CALIFORNIA RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT Members shall not collect information from a person based on religious belief, practice, affiliation, national origin or ethnicity unless permitted under state or federal law (Government Code § 8310.3). Members shall not assist federal government authorities (Government Code § 8310.3): (a) In compiling personal information about a person’s religious belief, practice, affiliation, national origin or ethnicity. (b) By investigating, enforcing or assisting with the investigation or enforcement of any requirement that a person register with the federal government based on religious belief, practice, or affiliation, or national origin or ethnicity. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/04/28, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Policing - 318 Published with permission by Petaluma Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 156 Petaluma Police Department Policy Manual Bias-Based Policing 402.4 MEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES Every member of this department shall perform his/her duties in a fair and objective manner and is responsible for promptly reporting any suspected or known instances of bias-based policing to a supervisor. Members should, when reasonable to do so, intervene to prevent any biased-based actions by another member. 402.4.1 REASON FOR CONTACT Officers contacting a person shall be prepared to articulate sufficient reason for the contact, independent of the protected characteristics of the individual. To the extent that written documentation would otherwise be completed (e.g., arrest report, field interview (FI) card), the involved officer should include those facts giving rise to the contact, as applicable. Except for required data-collection forms or methods, nothing in this policy shall require any officer to document a contact that would not otherwise require reporting. 402.4.2 REPORTING OF STOPS Unless an exception applies under 11 CCR 999.227, an officer conducting a stop of a person shall collect the data elements required by 11 CCR 999.226 for every person stopped and prepare a stop data report. When multiple officers conduct a stop, the officer with the highest level of engagement with the person shall collect the data elements and prepare the report (11 CCR 999.227). If multiple agencies are involved in a stop and the Petaluma Police Department is the primary agency, the Petaluma Police Department officer shall collect the data elements and prepare the stop data report (11 CCR 999.227). The stop data report should be completed by the end of the officer’s shift or as soon as practicable (11 CCR 999.227). 402.5 SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILITIES Supervisors should monitor those individuals under their command for compliance with this policy and shall handle any alleged or observed violations in accordance with the Personnel Complaints Policy. (a) Supervisors should discuss any issues with the involved officer and his/her supervisor in a timely manner. 1. Supervisors should document these discussions, in the prescribed manner. (b) Supervisors should periodically review MAV recordings, portable audio/video recordings, Mobile Data Computer (MDC) data and any other available resource used to document contact between officers and the public to ensure compliance with the policy. 1. Supervisors should document these periodic reviews. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/04/28, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Policing - 319 Published with permission by Petaluma Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 157 Petaluma Police Department Policy Manual Bias-Based Policing 2. Recordings or data that capture a potential instance of bias-based policing should be appropriately retained for administrative investigation purposes. (c) Supervisors shall initiate investigations of any actual or alleged violations of this policy. (d) Supervisors should take prompt and reasonable steps to address any retaliatory action taken against any member of this department who discloses information concerning bias-based policing. 402.6 REPORTING TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE The Professional Standards Unit Manager shall ensure that all data required by the California Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding complaints of racial bias against officers is collected and provided to the Records Supervisor for required reporting to the DOJ (Penal Code § 13012; Penal Code § 13020). See the Records Team Policy. Supervisors should ensure that data stop reports are provided to the Records Supervisor for required annual reporting to the DOJ (Government Code § 12525.5) (See Records Bureau Policy). 402.7 ADMINISTRATION Each year, the Patrol Division Commander should review the efforts of the Department to provide fair and objective policing and submit an annual report, including public concerns and complaints, to the Chief of Police. The annual report should not contain any identifying information about any specific complaint, member of the public or officers. It should be reviewed by the Chief of Police to identify any changes in training or operations that should be made to improve service. Supervisors should review the annual report and discuss the results with those they are assigned to supervise. 402.8 TRAINING Training on fair and objective policing and review of this policy should be conducted as directed by the Training Section. (a) All sworn members of this department will be scheduled to attend Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST)-approved training on the subject of bias-based policing. (b) Pending participation in such POST-approved training and at all times, all members of this department are encouraged to familiarize themselves with and consider racial and cultural differences among members of this community. (c) Each sworn member of this department who received initial bias-based policing training will thereafter be required to complete an approved refresher course every five years, or sooner if deemed necessary, in order to keep current with changing racial, identity and cultural trends (Penal Code § 13519.4(i)). Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/04/28, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Policing - 320 Published with permission by Petaluma Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 157 E.14 Riverside Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 159 Policy Riverside Police Department 401 Riverside PD Policy Manual Racial- or Bias-Based Profiling 401.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE This policy provides guidance to department members and establishes appropriate controls to ensure that members of the Riverside Police Department do not engage in racial- or bias-based profiling or violate any related laws while serving the community. 401.1.1 DEFINITIONS Definitions related to this policy include: Racial- or bias-based profiling - An inappropriate reliance on factors such as race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, economic status, age, cultural group, disability or affiliation with any other similar identifiable group as a factor in deciding whether to take law enforcement action or to provide service. This includes gender identity or expression (Penal Code § 13519.4). 401.2 POLICY The Riverside Police Department is committed to providing law enforcement services to the community with due regard for the racial, cultural or other differences of those served. It is the policy of this department to provide law enforcement services and to enforce the law equally, fairly and without discrimination toward any individual or group. Race, ethnicity or nationality, religion, sex, sexual orientation, economic status, age, cultural group, disability or affiliation with any other similar identifiable group shall not be used as the basis for providing differing levels of law enforcement service or the enforcement of the law. 401.3 RACIAL- OR BIAS-BASED PROFILING PROHIBITED Racial- or bias-based profiling is strictly prohibited. However, nothing in this policy is intended to prohibit an officer from considering factors such as race or ethnicity in combination with other legitimate factors to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause (e.g., suspect description is limited to a specific race or group). 401.4 MEMBER RESPONSIBILITY Every member of this department shall perform his/her duties in a fair and objective manner and is responsible for promptly reporting any known instances of racial- or bias-based profiling to a supervisor. 401.4.1 REASON FOR DETENTION Officers detaining a person shall be prepared to articulate sufficient reasonable suspicion to justify a detention, independent of the individual’s membership in a protected class. To the extent that written documentation would otherwise be completed (e.g., arrest report, Field Interview (FI) card), the involved officer should include those facts giving rise to the officer’s reasonable suspicion or probable cause for the detention, as applicable. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/07/01, All Rights Reserved. Racial- or Bias-Based Profiling - 1 Published with permission by Riverside Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 160 Riverside Police Department Riverside PD Policy Manual Racial- or Bias-Based Profiling Nothing in this policy shall require any officer to document a contact that would not otherwise require reporting. 401.5 SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILITY Supervisors shall monitor those individuals under their command for any behavior that may conflict with the purpose of this policy and shall handle any alleged or observed violation of this policy in accordance with the Personnel Complaints Policy. (a) Supervisors should discuss any issues with the involved officer and his/her supervisor in a timely manner. (b) Supervisors should periodically review MAV recordings, MDC data and any other available resource used to document contact between officers and the public to ensure compliance with the policy. 1. Supervisors should document these periodic reviews. 2. Recordings that capture a potential instance of racial- or bias-based profiling should be appropriately retained for administrative investigation purposes. (c) Supervisors shall initiate investigations of any actual or alleged violations of this policy. (d) Supervisors should ensure that no retaliatory action is taken against any member of this department who discloses information concerning racial- or bias-based profiling. 401.6 TRAINING Training on racial- or bias-based profiling and review of this policy should be conducted as directed by the Training Bureau. (a) All sworn members of this department will be scheduled to attend Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST)-approved training on the subject of racial- or bias- based profiling. (b) Pending participation in such POST-approved training and at all times, all members of this department are encouraged to familiarize themselves with and consider racial and cultural differences among members of this community. (c) Each sworn member of this department who received initial racial- or bias-based profiling training will thereafter be required to complete an approved refresher course every five years, or sooner if deemed necessary, in order to keep current with changing racial, identity and cultural trends (Penal Code § 13519.4(i)). 401.7 REPORTING TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE The Professional Standards Bureau Manager shall ensure that all data required by the California Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding complaints of racial bias against officers is collected and provided to the Records Bureau Manager for required reporting to the DOJ (Penal Code § 13012; Penal Code § 13020). Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/07/01, All Rights Reserved. Racial- or Bias-Based Profiling - 2 Published with permission by Riverside Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 161 E.15 Rohnert Park Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 162 Policy Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety 401 Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety Policy Manual Bias-Based Policing 401.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE This policy provides guidance to department members that affirms the Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety's commitment to policing that is fair and objective. Nothing in this policy prohibits the use of specified characteristics in law enforcement activities designed to strengthen the department's relationship with its diverse communities (e.g., cultural and ethnicity awareness training, youth programs, community group outreach, partnerships). 401.2 POLICY The Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety is committed to providing law enforcement services to the community with due regard for the racial, cultural or other differences of those served. It is the policy of this department to provide law enforcement services and to enforce the law equally, fairly, objectively and without discrimination toward any individual or group. 401.3 BIAS-BASED POLICING PROHIBITED Bias-based policing is strictly prohibited. However, nothing in this policy is intended to prohibit an officer from considering protected characteristics in combination with credible, timely and distinct information connecting a person or people of a specific characteristic to a specific unlawful incident, or to specific unlawful incidents, specific criminal patterns or specific schemes. 401.3.1 CALIFORNIA RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT Members shall not collect information from a person based on religious belief, practice, affiliation, national origin or ethnicity unless permitted under state or federal law (Government Code § 8310.3). Members shall not assist federal government authorities (Government Code § 8310.3): (a) In compiling personal information about a person’s religious belief, practice, affiliation, national origin or ethnicity. (b) By investigating, enforcing or assisting with the investigation or enforcement of any requirement that a person register with the federal government based on religious belief, practice, or affiliation, or national origin or ethnicity. 401.4 MEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES Every member of this department shall perform his/her duties in a fair and objective manner and is responsible for promptly reporting any suspected or known instances of bias-based policing to a supervisor. Members should, when reasonable to do so, intervene to prevent any biased-based actions by another member. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/03/30, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Policing - 308 Published with permission by Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 163 Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety Policy Manual Bias-Based Policing 401.4.1 REASON FOR CONTACT Officers contacting a person shall be prepared to articulate sufficient reason for the contact, independent of the protected characteristics of the individual. To the extent that written documentation would otherwise be completed (e.g., arrest report, field interview (FI) card), the involved officer should include those facts giving rise to the contact, as applicable. Except for required data-collection forms or methods, nothing in this policy shall require any officer to document a contact that would not otherwise require reporting. 401.5 REPORTING TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE The Sergeant or Command Staff Manager shall ensure that all data required by the California Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding complaints of racial bias against officers is collected and provided to the Records Supervisor for required reporting to the DOJ (Penal Code § 13012; Penal Code § 13020). See the Records Bureau Policy. Supervisors should ensure that data stop reports are provided to the Records Supervisor for required annual reporting to the DOJ (Government Code § 12525.5) (See Records Bureau Policy). 401.6 TRAINING Training on fair and objective policing and review of this policy should be conducted as directed by the Training Unit. (a) All sworn members of this department will be scheduled to attend Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST)-approved training on the subject of bias-based policing. (b) Pending participation in such POST-approved training and at all times, all members of this department are encouraged to familiarize themselves with and consider racial and cultural differences among members of this community. (c) Each sworn member of this department who received initial bias-based policing training will thereafter be required to complete an approved refresher course every five years, or sooner if deemed necessary, in order to keep current with changing racial, identity and cultural trends (Penal Code § 13519.4(i)). Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/03/30, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Policing - 309 Published with permission by Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 164 E.16 Santa Ana Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 165 Policy Santa Ana Police Department 401 Santa Ana PD Policy Manual Bias-Based Policing 401.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE This policy provides guidance to department members that affirms the Santa Ana Police Department's commitment to fair and objective policing. Nothing in this policy prohibits the use of specified characteristics in law enforcement activities designed to strengthen the Department's relationship with its diverse communities (e.g., cultural and ethnicity awareness training, youth programs, community group outreach, partnerships). 401.1.1 DEFINITIONS Definitions related to this policy include: Bias-based policing - An inappropriate reliance on actual or perceived characteristics such as race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, economic status, age, cultural group, disability, or affiliation with any non-criminal group (protected characteristics) as the basis for providing differing law enforcement service or enforcement (Penal Code § 13519.4). 401.2 POLICY The Santa Ana Police Department is committed to providing law enforcement services to the community with due regard for the racial, cultural or other differences of those served. It is the policy of this Department to provide law enforcement services and enforce the law equally, fairly, objectively and without discrimination toward any individual or group. 401.3 BIAS-BASED POLICING PROHIBITED Bias-based policing is strictly prohibited. Nothing in this policy is intended to prohibit an officer from considering protected characteristics in combination with credible, timely and distinct information connecting a person or group people of a specific characteristic to a specific unlawful incident(s), or specific criminal patterns, or specific schemes. 401.3.1 CALIFORNIA RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT Members shall not collect information from persons based on their religious beliefs, practices, affiliations, national origin or ethnicity unless permitted under state or federal law (Government Code § 8310.3). Members shall not assist federal government authorities with the following (Government Code § 8310.3): (a) Compiling personal information about a person’s religious belief, practice, affiliation, national origin or ethnicity. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/06/24, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Policing - 1 Published with permission by Santa Ana Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 166 Santa Ana Police Department Santa Ana PD Policy Manual Bias-Based Policing (b) Investigating, enforcing or assisting with the investigation or enforcement of any requirement that a person register with the federal government based on religious belief, practice, or affiliation, or national origin or ethnicity. 401.4 MEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES Every member of this department shall perform his/her duties in a fair and objective manner and is responsible for promptly reporting any suspected or known instances of bias-based policing to a supervisor. Members should, when reasonable to do so, intervene to prevent any biased-based actions by another member. 401.4.1 REASON FOR CONTACT Officers contacting a person shall be prepared to articulate sufficient reason(s) for the contact, independent of the protected characteristics of the individual. To the extent written documentation would otherwise be completed (e.g., arrest report, field interview (FI) card), the involved officer should include all facts giving rise to the contact, as applicable. Except for required data-collection forms or methods, nothing in this policy shall require officers to document contacts that would not otherwise require reporting. 401.4.2 REPORTING OF STOPS Unless an exception applies under 11 CCR 999.227, an officer conducting a stop of a person shall collect the data elements required by 11 CCR 999.226 for every person stopped and prepare a stop data report. When multiple officers conduct a stop, the officer with the highest level of engagement with the person shall collect the data elements and prepare the report (11 CCR 999.227). If multiple agencies are involved in a stop and the Santa Ana Police Department is the primary agency, the Santa Ana Police Department officer shall collect the data elements and prepare the stop data report (11 CCR 999.227). The stop data report should be completed by the end of the officer’s shift or as soon as practicable (11 CCR 999.227). 401.5 SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILITIES Supervisors should monitor those individuals under their command for compliance with this policy and shall handle any alleged or observed violations in accordance with Administrative Investigations and Personnel Complaints Policy (1010). (a) Supervisors should discuss any issues with the involved officer and his/her supervisor in a timely manner. (a) Supervisors should document these discussions in the prescribed manner. (b) Supervisors should periodically review BWC recordings, portable audio/video recordings, Mobile Data Terminal (MDT) data and any other available resource used to Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/06/24, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Policing - 2 Published with permission by Santa Ana Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 167 Santa Ana Police Department Santa Ana PD Policy Manual Bias-Based Policing document contact between officers and members of the public to ensure compliance with this policy. 1. Supervisors should document these periodic reviews. 2. Recordings or data that capture a potential instance of bias-based policing should be appropriately retained for administrative investigation purposes. (c) Supervisors shall initiate investigations of any actual or alleged violations of this policy. (d) Supervisors should take prompt and reasonable steps to address any retaliatory action taken against any member of this department who discloses information concerning bias-based policing. 401.6 REPORTING TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE The Professional Standards UnitCommander shall ensure that all data required by the California Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding complaints of racial bias against officers is collected and provided to the Records Manager for required reporting to the DOJ (Penal Code § 13012; Penal Code § 13020). See the Records Division Policy. Supervisors should ensure that data stop reports are provided to the Records Manager for required annual reporting to the DOJ (Government Code § 12525.5) (See Records Division Policy). 401.7 ADMINISTRATION Each year, the Professional Standards Commander should review the efforts of the Department to provide fair and objective policing and submit an annual report, including public concerns and complaints, to the Chief of Police. The annual report should not contain any identifying information about any specific complaint, member of the public or officers. It should be reviewed by the Chief of Police to identify any changes in training or operations that should be made to improve service. Supervisors should review the annual report and discuss the results with those they are assigned to supervise. 401.8 TRAINING Training on fair and objective policing and review of this policy should be conducted as directed by the Training Division. (a) All sworn members of the Department will be scheduled to attend Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST)-approved training on the subject of bias-based policing. (b) Pending participation in such POST-approved training and at all times, all members of this Department are encouraged to familiarize themselves with and consider racial and cultural differences among members of this community. (c) Each sworn member of this Department who received initial bias-based policing training will thereafter be required to complete an approved refresher course every Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/06/24, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Policing - 3 Published with permission by Santa Ana Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 167 Santa Ana Police Department Santa Ana PD Policy Manual Bias-Based Policing five (5) years, or sooner if deemed necessary, in order to keep current with changing racial, identity and cultural trends (Penal Code § 13519.4(i)). Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2020/06/24, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Policing - 4 Published with permission by Santa Ana Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 167 E.17 Santa Rosa Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 170 Policy Santa Rosa Police Department 402 Santa Rosa PD Policy Manual Bias-Based Policing 402.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE This policy provides guidance to department employees that affirms the Santa Rosa Police Department’s commitment to policing that is fair and objective. Nothing in this policy prohibits the use of specified characteristics in law enforcement activities designed to strengthen the department’s relationship with its diverse communities (e.g., cultural and ethnicity awareness training, youth programs, community group outreach, partnerships). Adopted 5-22-13 by Chief Thomas E. Schwedhelm. Revised 5-16-18 by Chief Robert L. Schreeder. Revised 10-1-18 by Chief Robert L. Schreeder. 402.2 POLICY The Santa Rosa Police Department is committed to providing law enforcement services to the community with due regard for the racial, cultural or other differences of those served. It is the policy of this department to provide law enforcement services and to enforce the law equally, fairly, objectively and without discrimination toward any individual or group. 402.3 BIAS-BASED POLICING PROHIBITED Bias-based policing is strictly prohibited. However, nothing in this policy is intended to prohibit an officer from considering protected characteristics in combination with credible, timely and distinct information connecting a person or people of a specific characteristic to a specific unlawful incident, or to specific unlawful incidents, specific criminal patterns or specific schemes. 402.3.1 CALIFORNIA RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT Employees shall not collect information from a person based on religious belief, practice, affiliation, national origin or ethnicity unless permitted under state or federal law (Government Code § 8310.3). Employees shall not assist federal government authorities (Government Code § 8310.3): (a) In compiling personal information about a person’s religious belief, practice, affiliation, national origin or ethnicity. (b) By investigating, enforcing or assisting with the investigation or enforcement of any requirement that a person register with the federal government based on religious belief, practice, or affiliation, or national origin or ethnicity. 402.4 EMPLOYEE RESPONSIBILITIES Every employee of this department shall perform his/her duties in a fair and objective manner and is responsible for promptly reporting any suspected or known instances of bias-based policing to a supervisor. Employees should, when reasonable to do so, intervene to prevent any biased- based actions by another employee. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2019/08/01, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Policing - 237 Published with permission by Santa Rosa Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 171 Santa Rosa Police Department Santa Rosa PD Policy Manual Bias-Based Policing 402.5 SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILITIES Supervisors shall handle any alleged or observed violations in accordance with City and Department Rules and Regulations. (a) Supervisors should discuss any issues with the involved employee and his/her supervisor in a timely manner. 1. Supervisors should document these discussions in the prescribed manner. (b) Supervisors shall initiate a personnel inquiry for any actual or alleged violation of this policy. (c) Supervisors should take prompt and reasonable steps to address any retaliatory action taken against any employee of this department who discloses information concerning bias-based policing. 402.6 REPORTING TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE The Support Bureau Manager shall ensure that all data required by the California Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding complaints of racial bias against officers is collected and provided to the Technical Services Division Manager for required reporting to the DOJ (California Penal Code §§ 13012 and 13020). Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2019/08/01, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Policing - 238 Published with permission by Santa Rosa Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 172 E.18 San Francisco Sheriff’s Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 173 Policy San Francisco Sheriff's Department 402 Administration and Field Operations Policy Manual Bias-Based Law Enforcement 402.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The San Francisco Sheriff's Department is committed to ensuring that members do not engage in racial or bias based profiling or violate any related laws while serving the community. 402.1.1 DEFINITIONS Definitions related to this policy include: Bias-based enforcement - An inappropriate reliance on actual or perceived characteristics such as race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, economic status, age, cultural group, disability or affiliation with any non-criminal group (protected characteristics) as the basis for providing differing law enforcement service or enforcement (Penal Code § 13519.4). 402.2 POLICY The San Francisco Sheriff's Department is committed to providing law enforcement services to the community with due regard for the racial, cultural or other differences of those served. It is the policy of this department to provide law enforcement services and to enforce the law equally, fairly, objectively and without discrimination toward any individual or group. 402.3 BIAS-BASED ENFORCEMENT PROHIBITED Bias-based enforcement is strictly prohibited. However, nothing in this policy is intended to prohibit a deputy from considering protected characteristics in combination with credible, timely and distinct information connecting a person or people of a specific characteristic to a specific unlawful incident, or to specific unlawful incidents, specific criminal patterns or specific schemes. 402.4 MEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES Every member of this department shall perform their duties in a fair and objective manner and is responsible for promptly reporting suspected or known instances of bias-based enforcement to a supervisor. Members should, when reasonable to do so, intervene to prevent any biased-based actions by another member. 402.4.1 REASON FOR CONTACT Deputies contacting a person shall be prepared to articulate a sufficient reason for the contact, independent of the protected characteristics of the individual. To the extent that written documentation would otherwise be completed, the involved deputy should include those facts giving rise to the contact, as applicable. Except for required data-collection forms or methods, nothing in this policy shall require any deputy to document a contact that would not otherwise require reporting. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/04/19, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Law Enforcement - 1 Published with permission by San Francisco Sheriff's Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 174 San Francisco Sheriff's Department Administration and Field Operations Policy Manual Bias-Based Law Enforcement 402.4.2 REPORTING OF STOPS Unless an exception applies under 11 CCR 999.227, a deputy conducting a stop of a person shall collect the data elements required by 11 CCR 999.226 for every person stopped and prepare a stop data report. When multiple deputies conduct a stop, the deputy with the highest level of engagement with the person shall collect the data elements and prepare the report by the end of the deputy's shift (11 CCR 999.227). When a deputy conducts a traffic stop and issues a citation, the deputy shall ensure the Training Coordinator or supervisor responsible for entering the stop data in the SFSD Citation Database, is provided a copy. 402.5 SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILITIES Supervisors shall monitor those individuals under their command for compliance with this policy and shall take appropriate action to correct and/or recommend discipline for alleged or observed violations of this policy. (a) Supervisors shall discuss and document any issues with the involved deputy and their supervisor in a timely manner. (b) Supervisors should periodically review Mobile Audio Video (MAV) recordings, portable audio/video recordings, Mobile Data Terminal (MDT) data and any other available resource used to document contact between deputies and the public to ensure compliance with the policy. 1. Supervisors should document these periodic reviews. 2. Recordings or data that capture a potential instance of bias-based enforcement shall be retained for administrative investigation purposes. (c) Supervisors shall initiate investigations of any actual or alleged violations of this policy. (d) Supervisors shall take prompt action to address any retaliatory action taken against a member of this department who discloses information concerning bias-based enforcement. 402.6 REPORTING TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE The Field Operations Division Captain shall ensure that all data required by the California Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding complaints of racial bias against deputies is collected and provided by the Sheriff's Patrol Unit Commander for required reporting to the DOJ (Penal Code § 13012; Penal Code § 13020). Supervisors should ensure that data stop reports are provided to the Sheriff's Patrol Unit Commander for required annual reporting to the DOJ (Government Code § 12525.5). 402.7 ADMINISTRATION Each year, the Field Operations Division Chief shall review the efforts of the Department to provide fair and objective law enforcement and submit an annual report, including public concerns and complaints, to the Sheriff. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/04/19, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Law Enforcement - 2 Published with permission by San Francisco Sheriff's Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 175 San Francisco Sheriff's Department Administration and Field Operations Policy Manual Bias-Based Law Enforcement The annual report should not contain any identifying information about a specific complaint, member of the public or deputies. It shall be reviewed by the Sheriff to identify any changes in training or operations that should be made to improve service. Supervisors shall review the annual report and discuss the results with those they are assigned to supervise. 402.8 TRAINING Training on fair and objective enforcement and review of this policy shall be conducted as directed by the Training Unit. (a) All deputies will be scheduled to attend Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST)- approved training on the subject of bias-based enforcement. (b) Pending participation in such POST-approved training and at all times, members are encouraged to familiarize themselves with and consider racial and cultural differences among members of this community. (c) All deputies who received initial bias-based enforcement training will thereafter be required to complete an approved refresher course every five years, or sooner if deemed necessary, in order to keep current with changing racial, identity and cultural trends (Penal Code § 13519.4(i)). Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/04/19, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Law Enforcement - 3 Published with permission by San Francisco Sheriff's Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 176 E.19 Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 177 Policy Sonoma County Sheriff's Office 401 Policies Bias-Based Policing 401.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE This policy provides guidance to office members that affirms the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office's commitment to policing that is fair and objective. Nothing in this policy prohibits the use of specified characteristics in law enforcement activities designed to strengthen the office's relationship with its diverse communities (e.g., cultural and ethnicity awareness training, youth programs, community group outreach, partnerships). 401.1.1 DEFINITIONS Definitions related to this policy include: Bias-based policing - An inappropriate reliance on characteristics such as race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, economic status, age, cultural group, disability or affiliation with any non-criminal group (protected characteristics) as the basis for providing differing law enforcement service or enforcement (Penal Code § 13519.4). 401.2 POLICY The Sonoma County Sheriff's Office is committed to providing law enforcement services to the community with due regard for the racial, cultural or other differences of those served. It is the policy of this office to provide law enforcement services and to enforce the law equally, fairly, objectively and without discrimination toward any individual or group. 401.3 BIAS-BASED POLICING PROHIBITED Bias-based policing is strictly prohibited. However, nothing in this policy is intended to prohibit a deputy from considering protected characteristics in combination with credible, timely and distinct information connecting a person or people of a specific characteristic to a specific unlawful incident, or to specific unlawful incidents, specific criminal patterns or specific schemes. 401.3.1 CALIFORNIA RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT Members shall not collect information from a person based on religious belief, practice, affiliation, national origin or ethnicity unless permitted under state or federal law (Government Code § 8310.3). Members shall not assist federal government authorities (Government Code § 8310.3): (a) In compiling personal information about a person’s religious belief, practice, affiliation, national origin or ethnicity. (b) By investigating, enforcing or assisting with the investigation or enforcement of any requirement that a person register with the federal government based on religious belief, practice, or affiliation, or national origin or ethnicity. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/04/12, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Policing - 1 Published with permission by Sonoma County Sheriff's Office Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 178 Sonoma County Sheriff's Office Policies Bias-Based Policing 401.4 MEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES Every member of this office shall perform his/her duties in a fair and objective manner and is responsible for promptly reporting any suspected or known instances of bias-based policing to a supervisor. Members should, when reasonable to do so, intervene to prevent any biased-based actions by another member. 401.4.1 REASON FOR CONTACT Deputies contacting a person shall be prepared to articulate sufficient reason for the contact, independent of the protected characteristics of the individual. To the extent that written documentation would otherwise be completed (e.g., arrest report, field interview (FI) card), the involved deputy should include those facts giving rise to the contact, as applicable. Except for required data-collection forms or methods, nothing in this policy shall require any deputy to document a contact that would not otherwise require reporting. 401.5 SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILITIES Supervisors should monitor those individuals under their command for compliance with this policy and shall handle any alleged or observed violations in accordance with the Personnel Complaints Policy. (a) Supervisors should discuss any issues with the involved deputy and his/her supervisor in a timely manner. 1. Supervisors should document these discussions, in the prescribed manner. (b) Supervisors should periodically review BWC recordings, (MDC) data and any other available resource used to document contact between deputies and the public to ensure compliance with the policy. 1. Recordings or data that capture a potential instance of bias-based policing should be appropriately retained for administrative investigation purposes. (c) Supervisors shall initiate investigations of any actual or alleged violations of this policy. (d) Supervisors should take prompt and reasonable steps to address any retaliatory action taken against any member of this office who discloses information concerning bias- based policing. 401.6 REPORTING TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE The Professional Standards Bureau shall ensure that all data required by the California Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding complaints of racial bias against deputies is collected and provided to the CIB Manager for required reporting to the DOJ (Penal Code § 13012; Penal Code § 13020). See the CIB Policy. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/04/12, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Policing - 2 Published with permission by Sonoma County Sheriff's Office Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 179 Sonoma County Sheriff's Office Policies Bias-Based Policing 401.7 TRAINING Training on fair and objective policing and review of this policy should be conducted as directed by the Professional Standards Bureau. (a) All sworn members of this office will be scheduled to attend Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST)-approved training on the subject of bias-based policing. (b) Pending participation in such POST-approved training and at all times, all members of this office are encouraged to familiarize themselves with and consider racial and cultural differences among members of this community. (c) Each sworn member of this office who received initial bias-based policing training will thereafter be required to complete an approved refresher course every five years, or sooner if deemed necessary, in order to keep current with changing racial, identity and cultural trends (Penal Code § 13519.4(i)). Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/04/12, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Policing - 3 Published with permission by Sonoma County Sheriff's Office Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 179 E.20 Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 181 Policy Sonoma County Junior College 402 District Police Department Sonoma County Junior College District PD Policy Manual Bias-Based Policing 402.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE This policy provides guidance to department members that affirms the Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department's commitment to policing that is fair and objective. Nothing in this policy prohibits the use of specified characteristics in law enforcement activities designed to strengthen the department's relationship with its diverse communities (e.g., cultural and ethnicity awareness training, youth programs, community group outreach, partnerships). Adopted Chief Robert T. Brownlee 11-9-21 402.1.1 DEFINITIONS Definitions related to this policy include: Bias-based policing - An inappropriate reliance on actual or perceived characteristics such as race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, economic status, age, cultural group, disability, or affiliation with any non-criminal group (protected characteristics) as the basis for providing differing law enforcement service or enforcement (Penal Code § 13519.4). 402.2 POLICY The Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department is committed to providing law enforcement services to the community with due regard for the racial, cultural or other differences of those served. It is the policy of this department to provide law enforcement services and to enforce the law equally, fairly, objectively and without discrimination toward any individual or group. 402.3 BIAS-BASED POLICING PROHIBITED Bias-based policing is strictly prohibited. However, nothing in this policy is intended to prohibit an officer from considering protected characteristics in combination with credible, timely and distinct information connecting a person or people of a specific characteristic to a specific unlawful incident, or to specific unlawful incidents, specific criminal patterns or specific schemes. 402.3.1 CALIFORNIA RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT Members shall not collect information from a person based on religious belief, practice, affiliation, national origin or ethnicity unless permitted under state or federal law (Government Code § 8310.3). Members shall not assist federal government authorities (Government Code § 8310.3): (a) In compiling personal information about a person’s religious belief, practice, affiliation, national origin or ethnicity. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/11/18, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Policing - 1 Published with permission by Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 182 Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department Sonoma County Junior College District PD Policy Manual Bias-Based Policing (b) By investigating, enforcing or assisting with the investigation or enforcement of any requirement that a person register with the federal government based on religious belief, practice, or affiliation, or national origin or ethnicity. 402.4 MEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES Every member of this department shall perform his/her duties in a fair and objective manner and is responsible for promptly reporting any suspected or known instances of bias-based policing to a supervisor. Members should, when reasonable to do so, intervene to prevent any biased-based actions by another member. 402.4.1 REASON FOR CONTACT Officers contacting a person shall be prepared to articulate sufficient reason for the contact, independent of the protected characteristics of the individual. To the extent that written documentation would otherwise be completed (e.g., arrest report, field interview (FI) card), the involved officer should include those facts giving rise to the contact, as applicable. Except for required data-collection forms or methods, nothing in this policy shall require any officer to document a contact that would not otherwise require reporting. 402.4.2 REPORTING OF STOPS Unless an exception applies under 11 CCR 999.227, an officer conducting a stop of a person shall collect the data elements required by 11 CCR 999.226 for every person stopped and prepare a stop data report. When multiple officers conduct a stop, the officer with the highest level of engagement with the person shall collect the data elements and prepare the report (11 CCR 999.227). If multiple agencies are involved in a stop and the Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department is the primary agency, the Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department officer shall collect the data elements and prepare the stop data report (11 CCR 999.227). The stop data report should be completed by the end of the officer’s shift or as soon as practicable (11 CCR 999.227). 402.5 SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILITIES Supervisors should monitor those individuals under their command for compliance with this policy and shall handle any alleged or observed violations in accordance with the Personnel Complaints Policy. (a) Supervisors should discuss any issues with the involved officer and his/her supervisor in a timely manner. 1. Supervisors should document these discussions, in the prescribed manner. (b) Supervisors should periodically review recordings, portable audio/video recordings, Mobile Digital Computer (MDC) data, the DOJ portal and/or any other Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/11/18, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Policing - 2 Published with permission by Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 183 Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department Sonoma County Junior College District PD Policy Manual Bias-Based Policing available resource used to document contact between officers and the public to ensure compliance with the policy. 1. Supervisors should document these periodic reviews. 2. Recordings or data that capture a potential instance of bias-based policing should be appropriately retained for administrative investigation purposes. (c) Supervisors shall initiate investigations of any actual or alleged violations of this policy. (d) Supervisors should take prompt and reasonable steps to address any retaliatory action taken against any member of this department who discloses information concerning bias-based policing. 402.6 ADMINISTRATION Periodically, the Chief of Police should review the efforts of the Department to provide fair and objective policing and submit an report, including public concerns and complaints. The report should not contain any identifying information about any specific complaint, member of the public or officers. It should be reviewed by the Chief of Police to identify any changes in training or operations that should be made to improve service. Supervisors should review the report and discuss the results with those they are assigned to supervise. 402.7 TRAINING Training on fair and objective policing and review of this policy should be conducted as directed by the Training Section. (a) All sworn members of this department will be scheduled to attend Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST)-approved training on the subject of bias-based policing. (b) Pending participation in such POST-approved training and at all times, all members of this department are encouraged to familiarize themselves with and consider racial and cultural differences among members of this community. (c) Each sworn member of this department who received initial bias-based policing training will thereafter be required to complete an approved refresher course every five years, or sooner if deemed necessary, in order to keep current with changing racial, identity and cultural trends (Penal Code § 13519.4(i)). 402.8 REPORTING TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE The Chief of Police or designee shall ensure that all data required by the California Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding complaints of racial bias against officers is collected and provided to the Records Custodian for required reporting to the DOJ (Penal Code § 13012; Penal Code § 13020). See the Records Center Policy. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/11/18, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Policing - 3 Published with permission by Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 184 Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department Sonoma County Junior College District PD Policy Manual Bias-Based Policing Supervisors should ensure that data stop reports are provided to the Records Custodian for required annual reporting to the DOJ (Government Code § 12525.5) (See Records Bureau Policy). Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/11/18, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Policing - 4 Published with permission by Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 185 E.21 Ventura County Sheriff’s Office Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 186 Policy Ventura County Sheriff's Office 401 Ventura County SO Policy Manual Bias-Based Policing 401.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE This policy provides guidance to department members that affirms the Ventura County Sheriff's Office 's commitment to policing that is fair and objective. Nothing in this policy prohibits the use of specified characteristics in law enforcement activities designed to strengthen the department’s relationship with its diverse communities (e.g., cultural and ethnicity awareness training, youth programs, community group outreach, partnerships). 401.1.1 DEFINITIONS Definitions related to this policy include: Bias-based policing - An inappropriate reliance on actual or perceived characteristics such as race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, economic status, age, cultural group, disability, or affiliation with any non-criminal group (protected characteristics) as the basis for providing differing law enforcement service or enforcement (Penal Code § 13519.4). 401.2 POLICY The Ventura County Sheriff's Office is committed to providing law enforcement services to the community with due regard for the racial, cultural or other differences of those served. It is the policy of this department to provide law enforcement services and to enforce the law equally, fairly, objectively and without discrimination toward any individual or group. 401.3 BIAS-BASED POLICING PROHIBITED Bias-based policing is strictly prohibited. However, nothing in this policy is intended to prohibit a deputy from considering protected characteristics in combination with credible, timely and distinct information connecting a person or people of a specific characteristic to a specific unlawful incident, or to specific unlawful incidents, specific criminal patterns or specific schemes. 401.3.1 REPORTING TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE The Professional Standards Bureau Commander shall ensure that all data required by the Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding complaints of racial bias against deputies is collected and reported annually to DOJ (Penal Code § 13012; Penal Code § 13020). 401.3.2 CALIFORNIA RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT Members shall not collect information from a person based on religious belief, practice, affiliation, national origin or ethnicity unless permitted under state or federal law (Government Code § 8310.3). Members shall not assist federal government authorities (Government Code § 8310.3): Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/02/02, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Policing - 275 Published with permission by Ventura County Sheriff's Office Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 187 Ventura County Sheriff's Office Ventura County SO Policy Manual Bias-Based Policing (a) In compiling personal information about a person’s religious belief, practice, affiliation, national origin or ethnicity. (b) By investigating, enforcing or assisting with the investigation or enforcement of any requirement that a person register with the federal government based on religious belief, practice, or affiliation, or national origin or ethnicity. 401.3.3 RACIAL IDENTITY PROFILING ACT (RIPA) Department members shall collect and report data for all individuals detained or searched during a call for service or self-initiated activity, in accordance with the Racial and Identity Profiling Act (Government Code § 12525.5). This data shall be collected through the department developed application that can be found on department issued electronic equipment and should be submitted upon completion of the activity and unless prior approved, prior to the end of shift. Field Supervisors shall review and ensure that personal identifying information is not included in the RIPA information prior to approval. Approval of RIPA data shall be completed in most cases prior to the end of shift. 401.4 TRAINING Training on fair and objective policing and review of this policy should be conducted as directed by the Training Center. (a) All sworn members of this department will be scheduled to attend Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST)-approved training on the subject of bias-based policing. (b) Pending participation in such POST-approved training and at all times, all members of this department are encouraged to familiarize themselves with and consider racial and cultural differences among members of this community. (c) Each sworn member of this department who received initial bias-based policing training will thereafter be required to complete an approved refresher course every five years, or sooner if deemed necessary, in order to keep current with changing racial, identity and cultural trends (Penal Code § 13519.4(i)). 401.5 MEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES Every member of this department shall perform his/her duties in a fair and objective manner and is responsible for promptly reporting any suspected or known instances of bias-based policing to a supervisor. Members should, when reasonable to do so, intervene to prevent any biased-based actions by another member. 401.6 SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILITIES Supervisors shall handle any alleged or observed violation of this policy in accordance with the Personnel Complaints Policy. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/02/02, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Policing - 276 Published with permission by Ventura County Sheriff's Office Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 188 E.22 Windsor Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 189 Policy Windsor Police Department 401 Policy Manual Bias-Based Policing 401.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE This policy provides guidance to department members that affirms the Windsor Police Department 's commitment to policing that is fair and objective. Nothing in this policy prohibits the use of specified characteristics in law enforcement activities designed to strengthen the department’s relationship with its diverse communities (e.g., cultural and ethnicity awareness training, youth programs, community group outreach, partnerships). 401.1.1 DEFINITIONS Definitions related to this policy include: Bias-based policing - An inappropriate reliance on actual or perceived characteristics such as race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, economic status, age, cultural group, disability, or affiliation with any non-criminal group (protected characteristics) as the basis for providing differing law enforcement service or enforcement (CRS § 24-31-309). 401.2 POLICY The Windsor Police Department is committed to providing law enforcement services to the community with due regard for the racial, cultural or other differences of those served. It is the policy of this department to provide law enforcement services and to enforce the law equally, fairly, objectively and without discrimination toward any individual or group. 401.3 BIAS-BASED POLICING PROHIBITED Bias-based policing is strictly prohibited. However, nothing in this policy is intended to prohibit an officer from considering protected characteristics in combination with credible, timely and distinct information connecting a person or people of a specific characteristic to a specific unlawful incident, or to specific unlawful incidents, specific criminal patterns or specific schemes. 401.4 MEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES Every member of this department shall perform his/her duties in a fair and objective manner and is responsible for promptly reporting any suspected or known instances of racial- or bias-based profiling to a supervisor. Members should, when reasonable to do so, intervene to prevent any biased-based actions by another member. Officers shall provide, without being asked, a business card to any person who was detained in a traffic stop and was not cited or arrested. The business card shall include identifying information including, but not limited to, the officer's name, division, precinct and badge or other identification number and a telephone number that may be used, if necessary, to report any comments, either positive or negative, regarding the traffic stop (CRS § 24-31-309(4)(a)). Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/09/09, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Policing - 254 Published with permission by Windsor Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 190 Windsor Police Department Policy Manual Bias-Based Policing 401.4.1 REASON FOR CONTACT Officers contacting a person shall be prepared to articulate sufficient reason for the contact, independent of the protected characteristics of the individual. After making a consensual or nonconsensual contact for the purpose of enforcing the law or investigating possible violations of the law, officers should complete a report as required by CRS 24-31-309. To the extent that written documentation would otherwise be completed (e.g., arrest report, Field Interview (FI) card), the involved officer should include those facts giving rise to the contact, as applicable. Except for required data-collection forms or methods, nothing in this policy shall require any officer to document a contact that would not otherwise require reporting. 401.5 SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILITIES Supervisors should monitor those individuals under their command for compliance with this policy and shall handle any alleged or observed violations in accordance with the Personnel Complaints Policy. Supervisors should ensure that the identity of a person filing a bias-based profiling complaint is kept confidential to the extent permitted by law or unless necessary for further processing of the complaint (CRS § 24-31-309). (a) Supervisors should discuss any issues with the involved officer and his/her supervisor in a timely manner. 1. Supervisors should document these discussions, in the prescribed manner. (b) Supervisors should periodically review MAV recordings, portable audio/video recordings, Mobile Data Terminal, (MDT) data and any other available resource used to document contact between officers and the public to ensure compliance with this policy. 1. Supervisors should document these periodic reviews. 2. Recordings that capture a potential instance of bias-based policing should be appropriately retained for administrative investigation purposes. (c) Supervisors shall initiate investigations of any actual or alleged violations of this policy. (d) Supervisors should take prompt and reasonable steps to address any retaliatory action taken against any member of this department who discloses information concerning bias-based policing. 401.6 STATE REPORTING The Department shall compile, on at least an annual basis, any information derived from complaints of profiling that are received due to the distribution of business cards as provided in this policy. The information shall be made available to the public but shall not include the names of officers or the names of persons alleging profiling (CRS § 24-31-309). Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/09/09, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Policing - 255 Published with permission by Windsor Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 192 Windsor Police Department Policy Manual Bias-Based Policing 401.7 ADMINISTRATION Each year, the Investigation Section Commander should review the efforts of the Department to provide fair and objective policing and submit an annual report, including public concerns and complaints, to the Chief of Police. The annual report should not contain any identifying information about any specific complaint, citizen or officers. It should be reviewed by the Chief of Police to identify any changes in training or operations that should be made to improve service. Supervisors should review the information compiled from complaints, as provided in this policy and the annual report, and discuss the results with those they are assigned to supervise. 401.8 TRAINING Training on fair and objective policing and review of this policy should be conducted as directed by the Training Section. All certified members will attend regular training on the subject of bias-based policing (CRS § 24- 31-309). All newly employed officers should receive a copy of this policy and initial training on the subject of bias-based policing. 401.9 PUBLIC INFORMATION The Investigation Section Commander will ensure that this policy is made available to the public for inspection during business hours (CRS § 24-31-309). Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/09/09, All Rights Reserved. Bias-Based Policing - 256 Published with permission by Windsor Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 192 APPENDIX F – WAVES 1 AND 2 REVISED BIAS-FREE POLICING POLICIES Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 193 F.1 California Highway Patrol Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 194 CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL GENERAL ORDER 100.21 REVISED DECEMBER 2020 RACIAL AND IDENTITY PROFILING/DEMOGRAPHIC DATA COLLECTION 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this General Order (GO) is to establish policy and procedures regarding the collection of demographic data, while emphasizing the Department's commitment to bias-free policing and the equitable treatment of all during public contacts. The intent of this policy is to increase departmental effectiveness and to strengthen public trust with the State of California's diverse population. 2. GENERAL. a. In an ongoing effort to maintain public trust, the Department's enforcement efforts must be consistent with the Department's organizational values of respect for others, fairness, ethical practices, and equitable treatment for all. As such, all enforcement actions by members of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) must be based on sound professional judgment and accomplished in a businesslike, firm, impartial, courteous, and consistent manner. b. The Department is committed to providing law enforcement services in a professional, nondiscriminatory, fair and equitable manner, while firmly embracing the tenets of racial equity and inclusion. The CHP recognizes that implicit bias can occur at both an individual and institutional level and is committed to addressing and eradicating both. c. On October 3, 2015, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill 953, known as the Racial and Identity Profiling Act of 2015 (RIPA), which requires the collection and reporting of specified demographic data for all enforcement contacts to the California Office of the Attorney General (OAG). As outlined in Section 12525.5 of the Government Code (GC), and associated regulations, the Department began collecting expanded demographic data on July 1, 2018. 3. DEFINITIONS. a. Racial or Identity Profiling. 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 1 GO 100.21 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 195 law enforcement activities following a stop, except that an officer may consider or rely on characteristics listed in a specific suspect description. (Refer to Section 13519.4 of the California Penal Code [PC].) b. Bias-Based Policing. Conduct by law enforcement officers motivated by an officer's beliefs about someone based on the person's actual or perceived personal characteristics. c. Implicit Bias. The attitudes or stereotypes that affect a person's understanding, actions, or decisions in an unconscious manner. d. Detention. A seizure of a person by an officer that results from physical restraint, unequivocal verbal commands, or words or conduct by an officer that would result in a reasonable person believing that they are not free to leave or otherwise disregard the officer. e. Probable Cause. Probable cause to arrest exists when there is a set of specific facts that would lead a reasonable person to objectively believe that a crime was committed by the person to be arrested. f. Reasonable Suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is the belief that something related to a crime has just happened, is happening, or is about to happen, and the vehicle or person being stopped, detained, or contacted is connected with that activity. 4. POLICY. a. Racial or identity profiling and discrimination of any kind are prohibited by the Department and will not be tolerated. It is the policy of the CHP to enforce the law without fear, favor, or discrimination. Immediate and appropriate disciplinary action will be taken against individuals determined to be in violation of this policy, up to and including termination. b. All CHP employees are prohibited from taking actions based on actual or perceived personal characteristics including, but not limited to: race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability, except when engaging in the investigation of appropriate suspect-specific activity to identify a particular person or group. c. Employees shall not delay or deny services based on an individual's actual or perceived personally identifying characteristics. GO 100.21 2 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 196 d. Officers may only consider or rely on characteristics listed in a specific description of a suspect, victim, or witness, based on trustworthy and relevant information that links a specific person to a particular incident. Absent these circumstances, officers shall not consider personal characteristics in establishing reasonable suspicion or probable cause. e. All employees shall aim to strengthen public trust when engaging with the public, especially in response to bias-based reports. Employees shall not use harassing, intimidating, derogatory, or prejudiced language, including profanity and slurs, related to an individual's actual or perceived characteristics. f. Employees shall not retaliate against any person who complains of bias-based policing or expresses negative views about them or the Department. g. All employees share the responsibility of preventing bias-based policing. Personnel who witness or are aware of instances of biased-based policing shall report the incident to a supervisor immediately. If safe to do so, and where appropriate, officers shall intervene when biased-based policing occurs in their presence. Supervisors who fail to respond to, document, or review allegations of biased-based policing will be subject to disciplinary action. h. Commanders shall ensure all personnel under their command, including dispatchers and nonsworn personnel, understand the content of this policy and comply with it at all times. 5. PUBLIC CONTACTS. a. To cultivate and foster transparency and trust with all communities, each member of the Department shall do the following when conducting pedestrian or vehicle stops unless circumstances indicate it would be unsafe to do so: (1) Be courteous, professional, and respectful. (2) Immediately after greeting the person stopped, briefly explain why the enforcement stop was made. (3) Ensure the stop is no longer than necessary to take appropriate action for the known or suspected offense and convey the purpose of reasonable delays. b. On-duty personnel receiving requests to view photographic ID should comply by displaying the front (photograph) side of their departmentally issued ID card, unless doing so would reasonably jeopardize officer and/or public safety. 3 GO 100.21 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 197 6. TRAINING. a. In addition to initial cadet training, all uniformed members of the Department shall attend racial and identity profiling refresher training, as required by the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) and Section 13519.4 PC. b. In addition to POST requirements, personnel shall adhere to all departmental training requirements outlined in Highway Patrol Manual (HPM) 10.12, Equal Employment Opportunity Manual, Chapter 9, Cultural Awareness, and HPM 70.13, Departmental Training Manual. 7. ENFORCEMENT/PUBLIC CONTACT DEMOGRAPHIC DATA COLLECTION. a. In compliance with Section 12525.5 GC and Title 11, California Code of Regulations, the Department will collect specified data elements for each public contact on the CHP 415, Daily Field Record, in the departmental Activity Tracking System (ATS). These data elements include the following: (1) Originating Agency Identifier number. (2) Date, time, and duration of stop. (3) Location of stop. (4) Perceived race or ethnicity of person stopped. (5) Perceived gender of person stopped. (6) Whether the person stopped is perceived to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. (7) Perceived age of person stopped. (8) Whether the person stopped is perceived to have limited or no English fluency. (9) Perceived or known disability of person stopped. (10) Reason for the stop. (11) Whether the stop was made in response to a call for service. (12) Actions taken by officer during stop. GO 100.21 4 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 198 (13) Result of stop. (14) Officer's unique (not departmental) identification number. (15) Officer's years of experience. (16) Officer's type of assignment. b. Under the reason for stop category, in addition to notating the type of stop and specific code violation, an additional narrative box shall be completed. The additional narrative box must include a brief explanation regarding the reason for the stop, beyond the general data values selected. c. In all cases where a 'perceived' data element is required, responses shall be based on perception alone. Officers may not consider identification documents obtained during the stop and shall not inquire with the person contacted to try and ascertain appropriate responses to any of these data elements. d. Although Section 12525.5 GC only requires reporting of enforcement contact data to the OAG, the Department will continue to collect data for all public contacts but will not transmit nonrequired data to the OAG. e. The Department will regularly analyze collected data, in consultation with representatives of an academic institution and/or the Citizens' Advisory Board, to identify trends and assist in identifying practices that may have a disparate impact on any of the diverse groups served by the CHP. 8. FIELD RECORD PROCEDURE. a. CHP 415, Daily Field Record. All commands are required to report public contact data on the CHP 415. Data collection shall be completed by all uniformed personnel when engaged in a recordable activity. Refer to HPM 40.71, CHP 415 User's Manual, for additional information regarding CHP 415 entries into the ATS. b. Partner Officers. In the case of partner officers, only one officer is to record the public contact data. Duplicate counts shall not be taken. c. Special Enforcement Operations. Uniformed personnel, when conducting special enforcement operations (e.g., Cargo Theft Interdiction Program, Investigative Services Unit operations, Construction/Maintenance Zone Enhanced Enforcement Programs, grant-funded enforcement operations), shall make public contact data entries as outlined in this GO. 5 GO 100.21 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 199 d. Federal Task Force. Uniformed personnel assigned to a federal task force are required to report data in accordance with this policy while performing duties as part of the task force, regardless of whether or not the task force has separate data collection policies. e. Automated Tracking System Not Available. Uniformed personnel without access to ATS will be required to collect data on the CJIS 2000, Stop Data Collection Form, created by the OAG and available in the online CHP forms directory and the OAG Web site. All required data shall be subsequently entered into the ATS from the completed CJIS 2000 forms. Once ATS data entry has been completed, corresponding CJIS 2000 forms may be destroyed. (Refer to Annex A.) f. Recordable Activity. An entry on the CHP 415 must be made for each person contacted during an enforcement stop or action, detention, crash, or motorist service (e.g., an officer may stop one vehicle with four occupants, cite the driver for speeding, search two passengers, and have three entries on the CHP 415). (1) Personnel shall not collect data for passengers in crashes, vehicle stops, or motorist services unless the passenger is subjected to one of the specific activities listed in "actions taken by the officer," on the CHP 415 (e.g., passenger cited, searched, handcuffed), excluding vehicle impounds. (2) When two or more reporting agencies are involved in a stop, only the primary agency shall submit demographic data. The primary agency is the agency with investigative jurisdiction based on local, county, state law, or applicable interagency agreement or memorandum of understanding. g. Exceptions. The following interactions do not require any data entry on the CHP415: (1) Crowd control or contacts made during public safety evacuations (e.g., natural disasters, critical incidents). (2) Contacts made during active shooter incidents. (3) Contacts made during security screenings required of all persons entering a building or event. (4) Absent additional law enforcement actions, contacts made during routine traffic control, sobriety checkpoints, or other situations in which the contact is the result of a blanket regulatory activity or neutral formula not based on individualized suspicion or personal characteristics. GO 100.21 6 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 200 h. Data Entry. (1) Personnel shall not include the name, address, social security number, or other unique personal identifying information of persons contacted in any CHP 415 entry, including narrative boxes. (2) Personnel shall complete and submit all CHP 415 entries prior to the end of their shift, unless exigent circumstances preclude doing so. In such circumstances, a supervisor shall be notified, and the data shall be completed as soon as practicable. (3) Supervisors shall conduct a periodic review of CHP 415 entries to ensure compliance with this GO. When reviewing CHP 415 entries, supervisors should ensure no personal or unique identifying information regarding the person stopped is entered in the narrative field. 9. PROCEDURES. Specific procedures for entering contact data on the CHP 415 are contained in HPM 40.71. 10. RESPONSIBILITIES. There are two Offices of Primary Interest responsible for the data collection program. They are as follows: a. Research and Planning Section is responsible for updating and maintaining departmental policy regarding racial or bias-based profiling and the collection of demographic data. b. Information Management Division (IMO) is responsible for maintaining the ATS and associated CHP 415 data collection system. Additionally, IMO is responsible for the electronic submission of required data to the OAG. OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER ANNEX A OPI: 061 7 GO 100.21 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 201 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 202 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 203 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 204 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 205 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 206 F.2 Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 207 Manual of Policy and Procedures : 3-01/000.05 - Bias - Free Policing 3-01/000.05 - Bias - Free Policing The Department is committed to ensuring that members of the public receive equal protection of the law without bias based on actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, disability, sexual orientation, or age in accordance with the rights secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Core Values Lead With Compassion, Serve With Humility And Courageously Seek Justice For ALL. Refer to Manual of Policy and Procedures (MPP) 3-01/000.13, Professional Conduct – Core Values, and MPP 3-01/121.00, Policy of Equality. These ideals are engrained into our efforts and reflect our Department’s continued commitment to Bias-Free Policing. Biased-based policing alienates communities, promotes distrust of law enforcement actions, and undermines legitimate law enforcement efforts. Biased, racial, or identity profiling will not be tolerated by the Department. See MPP 5-09/520.00, Constitutional Policing and Stops. Definitions Racial or Identity Profiling - 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: pat-down, consensual, and nonconsensual searches of a person or any property, seizing any property, removing vehicle occupants during a traffic stop, issuing a citation, and making an arrest. (Penal Code 13519.4 (e)). Biased-Based Policing - Is the intentional practice by an individual law enforcement officer who incorporates prejudicial judgments based on actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, disability, sexual orientation, or age that are inappropriately applied in the performance of their duties. Implicit Bias - The attitudes or stereotypes that affect a person’s understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner. These biases, which encompass both favorable and unfavorable assessments, are activated involuntarily and without an individual’s awareness or intentional control. Implicit biases are different from known biases that individuals may choose to conceal. Bias by Proxy - Occurs when an individual contacts the police and makes a false or ill-informed claim of misconduct about persons they dislike or are biased against based on explicit racial and identity profiling or implicit bias. When the police act on a request for service of unlawful bias, they risk perpetuating the callers’ bias. Department personnel should use their critical decision-making skills, drawing upon their training to access whether criminal conduct exists. Stop – Any detention by a peace officer of a person, or any peace officer interaction with a person in which the peace officer conducts a search, including a consensual search, of the person’s body or property in the person’s possession or control. 12525.5(g)(2)Government Code Detentions and Stops Current Revision Printed: 8/16/2021 (LASD) Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Pg. 1 / 4 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 208 Manual of Policy and Procedures : 3-01/000.05 - Bias - Free Policing Department members shall not use actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, disability, sexual orientation, or age as a factor, to any extent or degree, in establishing reasonable suspicion or probable cause except as part of actual and reliable information and description(s) of a specific suspect or suspects in any criminal investigation. (Navarette v California, 572 US 393, {2014}). Deputies should draw upon their training, and use critical decision making skills to access whether there is criminal conduct and be aware of implicit and bias by proxy while carrying out duties. Deputies conducting investigative detentions and stops shall: Establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause except as part of actual and credible description(s) of a specific suspect or suspects in any criminal investigation; Only conduct investigatory stops or detentions when they have reasonable suspicion that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in the commission of a crime; Not use racial or identity profiling in exercising discretion to conduct a search except as part of an actual and reliable information, and description of a specific suspect or suspects in any criminal investigation; Not initiate stops or other field contacts because of an individual’s actual or perceived immigration status; Not conduct arbitrary searches. The request to conduct a consent search must be reasonable, and a deputy must be able to articulate a valid reason under law and policy for initially having stopped the individual; and Only conduct searches of individuals based on probation or parole status when knowledge of a probation or parole search condition has been established. Persons that are contacted during consensual encounters shall be free to leave at all times and the contact shall be voluntary. A consensual encounter can transform into a detention if a reasonable person believes that they are not free to leave. Refer to MPP 5-09/520.05-Stops, Seizures, and Searches, MPP 5-09/520.15, Consensual Encounters, and MPP 5-09/520.25, Logging Field Activities. Community Encounters Department personnel are to interact with members of the public in a manner that is professional, respectful, and courteous. Refer to MPP 3-01/030.15, Conduct Toward Others, MPP 5-09/560.00, Interactions with Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Persons, and MPP 2-02/090.00, Deputy Sheriffs. Training State Mandated: Racial Profiling – All sworn personnel must attend once every five years. (Penal Code 13519.4(i)). Department Mandated: Respect Based Leadership – All personnel must attend once; and Leadership Development institute (DLI) – All personnel must attend session one (16 hours) once. Unit Optional Training: Current Revision Printed: 8/16/2021 (LASD) Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Pg. 2 / 4 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 209 Manual of Policy and Procedures : 3-01/000.05 - Bias - Free Policing Ethics in Community Policing. All units shall provide training to personnel, whenever possible, which enhances competence and skills required to meet unit needs. The training may consist of formal training sessions and/or briefings as time and necessity dictates. See MPP 3-02/080.01, Training Requirements for Sworn Personnel. Department personnel are responsible for knowing the contents of this policy. Complaints/Supervisory Review Department personnel who witness, or are aware of incidents of biased policing, shall report the incident to a supervisor. If a person alleges racial bias, the employee shall call a supervisor to the scene to determine an appropriate course of action. Sergeants are first-line supervisors with primary responsibility for ensuring compliance with the professional and ethical standards of the Department by all subordinate deputy sheriffs and civilian employees. See MPP 2-02/080.00, Sergeants. A Department Service Review is an externally initiated supervisory review of the Department’s or individual employee’s performance. External is defined as those which are received from any member of the public. Department service reviews shall be documented on Service Comment Report forms. The watch commander of the unit shall initiate a service review by immediately interviewing any member of the public who offers a comment. In cases of public input received through the mail or electronic means, the unit commander shall designate a lieutenant to complete the Service Comment Report form. Complaints of racial bias must be noted on the Watch Commanders Service Comment Report (WCSCR) form. See MPP 3-01/122.20, Policy of Equality-Procedures-External Complaint Monitoring, and MPP 3-04/010.05, Procedures for Department Service Reviews. The unit commander will assess the complaint and determine the disposition based on the evidence. See MPP 3-04/010.25, Personnel Complaints. Data Collection All significant public contacts and activity (as defined by section 5-09/520.25 - Logging Field Activities) shall be appropriately logged on the Mobile Digital Computer’s Deputy’s Daily Work Sheet (DDWS). The Mobile Digital Computer’s DDWS logs shall contain only accurate information including, but not limited to, the race of each individual detained or searched, the result of the stop, and the date, time, and location of the stop. See MPP 5-09/520.25, Logging Field Activities. Assembly Bill 953 (AB 953), also known as the Racial and Identity Profiling Act, was signed into law by the Governor in 2015, enacting section 12525.5 of the Government Code (12525.5 GC). As 12525.5 GC mandates, each state and local agency employing peace officers shall submit specific information, referred to as “stop data,” to the California State Attorney General regarding police practices pertaining to racial and identity profiling. The following personnel shall make a “stop data” entry into the Sheriff’s Automated Contact Reporting (SACR) system after conducting a stop. They include, but are not limited to, the following: Current Revision Printed: 8/16/2021 (LASD) Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Pg. 3 / 4 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 210 Manual of Policy and Procedures : 3-01/000.05 - Bias - Free Policing Any sworn member working a patrol assignment; Any sworn member working a detective assignment, specialized unit, and special task force (OSS, COPS, parole compliance, federal task force, etc.); Any sworn member working Department contracted overtime (parades, concerts, movies, sporting events); Any school resource deputy; and Any sworn member working in a courthouse or custody facility where there is civilian (public) contact. NOTE: Refer to Field Operations Directive 18-04 Sheriff’s Automated Contact Reporting (SACR) System, and Newsletter 18-07 Sheriff’s Automated Contact Reporting System (SACR) regarding the above requirements. This data is collected and sent to the Department of Justice (DOJ) annually as required by law. Revised: 8/16/2021 Current Revision Printed: 8/16/2021 (LASD) Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Pg. 4 / 4 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 211 F.3 Orange County Sheriff’s Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 212 Policy Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department 402 Orange County SD Policy Manual Bias Free Policing 402.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The Department strives to provide law enforcement services to our community with the proper care and concern for the racial and cultural differences of those we serve. It shall therefore be the policy and practice of this Department to provide law enforcement services and to enforce the law equally and fairly without discrimination toward any individual(s) or group because of their race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion,, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, cultural group, or mental or physical disability. 402.2 DEFINITIONS Bias-Free Policing: The provision of law enforcement services, whether in the jails, the courts, or on patrol, that is accomplished without the selective enforcement or non-enforcement of the law, including the selection or rejection of particular policing tactics or strategies, based on the subject's membership in a demographic category. Bias-free policing is policing that is free of discriminatory effect as well as discriminatory intent. Biased Policing: The provision of law enforcement services, or declining to provide law enforcement services, whether in the jails, the courts, or on patrol, based upon the inappropriate consideration of a person's demographic category. Demographic category: Refers to a person's race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, cultural group, or mental or physical disability. Implicit Bias: Refers to the attitudes or stereotypes that affect a person's understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner. These biases, which encompass both favorable and unfavorable assessments, are activated involuntarily and without an individual's awareness or intentional control. Implicit biases are different from known biases that individuals may choose to conceal. Racial or identity profiling: The consideration of, or reliance on, to any degree, a person's 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 nonconsensual searches of a person or any property, seizing any property, removing vehicle occupants during a traffic stop, issuing a citation, and making an arrest. (Penal Code § 13519.4(e)). Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/12/01, All Rights Reserved. Bias Free Policing - 1 Published with permission by Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 213 Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department Orange County SD Policy Manual Bias Free Policing 402.3 RACIAL OR IDENTITY PROFILING AND BIASED POLICING PROHIBITED Members shall not engage in biased policing or racial or identity profiling, and any such practice will not be tolerated by this Department (Penal Code § 13519.4(f)). 1. It is the responsibility of every Member of this Department to prevent, report, and respond appropriately to clear discriminatory or biased practices. 2. Every Member of this Department engaging in a non-consensual detention shall be prepared to articulate sufficient reasonable suspicion or probable cause to justify the detention independent of the individual's membership in a demographic category. (a) To the extent that written documentation would otherwise be completed (e.g., arrest report, F.I. card, etc.), the involved deputy should include those facts giving rise to the deputy's reasonable suspicion or probable cause for the contact. (b) Nothing in this policy shall require any deputy to prepare documentation of a contact that would not otherwise involve such reporting. 402.4 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT TO ENSURE BIAS FREE POLICING In an effort to prevent perceptions of biased policing, in accordance with officer safety, do the following: 1. Treat everyone with dignity, respect, courtesy, and professionalism, without harassing, intimidating, or using derogatory language verbally, in writing, or by gesture. 2. Ensure bias-free encounters by relying on information that is accurate, specific, and free from bias while developing reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause. 3. When initiating a search of a cell, dormitory, or incarcerated person, or when issuing directives to or responding to inquires from an incarcerated person, ensure that motivations and actions are free of bias and racial or identity profiling. 4. When initiating a pedestrian or vehicular stop, approach the person(s) being stopped and provide an explanation for the stop as soon as practical and safe. 5. Ensure that detentions are no longer than necessary. While the practice of racial profiling is strictly prohibited, it is recognized that race or ethnicity may be legitimately considered by a deputy in combination with other legitimate factors to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause (e.g., suspect description includes a specific race or group). The Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department shall investigate all complaints of alleged bias- based policing or racial or identity profiling against its Members. Members found to be in violation of this policy are subject to discipline in accordance with this Department's disciplinary policy. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/12/01, All Rights Reserved. Bias Free Policing - 2 Published with permission by Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 214 Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department Orange County SD Policy Manual Bias Free Policing 402.5 TRAINING 1. All sworn Members of this Department shall participate in training prescribed by the Department. 2. All sworn Members of this Department shall participate in expanded training as prescribed and certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) (Penal Code § 13519.4(g)). 3. Pending participation in such POST approved training and at all times, all Members of this Department are encouraged to familiarize themselves with and consider racial, identity, and cultural differences among members of our community. 4. Upon completion of initial POST approved training all sworn members of this Department shall be required to complete an approved refresher course every five years or sooner if deemed necessary in order to keep current with changing racial, identity, and cultural trends (Penal Code §13519.4(i)). 402.5.1 BIAS BY PROXY Bias by proxy occurs when individuals call the police and make false or ill-informed claims of misconduct about persons they dislike or are biased against based on explicit racial and identity profiling or implicit bias. When the police act on a request of service rooted in implicit or explicit bias, they risk perpetuating the caller's bias. Members should use their critical decision-making skills drawing upon their training to assess whether there is criminal or non-criminal conduct regardless of bias. 402.6 CALIFORNIA RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT Members shall not collect or disclose information regarding the religious beliefs, practice or affiliation of any individual unless permitted under state or federal law (Government Code § 8310.3). Per Government Code § 8310.3: • Notwithstanding any other law, a state or local agency or public employee acting under color of law shall not: • Provide or disclose to federal government authorities personal information regarding the religious beliefs, practices, or affiliation of any individual for the purpose of compiling a list, registry, or database of individuals based on religious affiliation, national origin, or ethnicity. • Use agency money, facilities, property, equipment, or personnel to assist in creation, implementation, or enforcement of any government program compiling a list, registry, or database of personal information about individuals based on religious belief, practice, or affiliation, or national origin or ethnicity, for law enforcement or immigration purposes. • Make personal information from agency databases available, including any databases maintained by private vendors contracting with the agency, to anyone or any entity for the purpose of investigation or enforcement under any government program compiling a list, registry, or database of individuals based Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/12/01, All Rights Reserved. Bias Free Policing -3 Published with permission by Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 215 Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department Orange County SD Policy Manual Bias Free Policing on religious belief, practice, or affiliation, or national origin or ethnicity for law enforcement or immigration purposes. • Notwithstanding any other law, state and local law enforcement agencies and their employees shall not: • Collect information on the religious belief, practice, or affiliation of any individual except (A) as part of a targeted investigation of an individual based on reasonable suspicion to believe that individual has engaged in, or been the victim of, criminal activity, and when there is a clear nexus between the criminal activity and the specific information collected about religious belief, or affiliation, or (B) where necessary to provide religious accommodations. • Use agency money, facilities, property, equipment, or personnel to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any criminal, civil, or administrative violation, or warrant for a violation, of any requirement that individuals register with the federal government or any federal agency based on religious belief, practice, or affiliation, national origin, or ethnicity. • An agency or employee will only be deemed to be in violation of this section if the agency or employee acted with actual knowledge that the information shared would be used for purposes prohibited by this section.. 402.7 SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILITY Supervisors should monitor those individuals under their command for compliance with this policy and shall handle any alleged or observed violations in accordance with the Personnel Complaint Procedure (Policy 1020). Annually, upon publication of the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Report, the S.A.F.EDivision Commander shall review the report and the Department's effort to prevent racial or identity profiling and submit an overview, including public concerns, to the Sheriff. This overview shall not contain any identifying information regarding any specific complaint, citizen, or officer. 402.8 REPORTING TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE The S.A.F.E. Division Commander or the authorized designee shall ensure that all data required by the Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding citizen complaints of racial bias against deputies is collected and provided to the Records Division to be reported annually to DOJ (Penal Code § 13012; Penal Code § 13020). Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/12/01, All Rights Reserved. Bias Free Policing - 4 Published with permission by Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 216 F.4 Fresno Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 217 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 218 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 219 APPENDIX G – AUGUST 24, 2021 LETTER FROM THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION TO THE RIPA BOARD Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 220 August 24, 2021 Racial and Identity Profiling Act Board Calls for Service Subcommittee ab953@doj.ca.gov Via Email RE: PROPOSED CALLS FOR SERVICE CHAPTER IN THE 2022 BOARD REPORT Dear Members of the RIPA Calls for Service Subcommittee: We write on behalf of the ACLU of Northern California, ACLU of Southern California, ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties, and ACLU California Action to provide input on the proposed calls for service chapter in the 2022 Racial and Identity Profiling Act (“RIPA”) Board Report. Fundamental Principles for Mental Health Calls for Service – Prioritizing Care First Response / Least Criminalizing Response We appreciate the proposed report’s attention to the important issue of mental health calls for service and support the guiding principles proposed, particularly Trauma-Informed Care, Harm Reduction, Voluntariness, Violence Free Intervention, Least Restrictive Intervention, Connection to Care, and Housing First. We write, however, to raise the need for an additional fundamental principle prioritizing care-focused first response and emphasizing the least criminalizing intervention – consistent with the proposed chapter in the 2022 Board Report addressing measures to prevent disability discrimination.1 Mental health calls for service are, by definition, calls related to health needs. Police responses, which are all fundamentally connected to the enforcement of criminal law, are ill-suited to respond to such calls. Dispatch systems that prioritize or default to police responses to mental health calls for service, instead of responses rooted in health care, discriminate against persons who express mental health needs or who are perceived as having mental disabilities by exposing them to criminal system involvement on the basis of their needs or perceived disability. Existing data analysis and recent incidents demonstrate the urgent need to avoid law enforcement response to mental health crises.2 Our analysis of URSUS data has revealed disturbing patterns of law enforcement using excessive force against people when responding to mental health crises. For example, in 2019, every severe use of force reported by the Bakersfield Police 1Subcommittee on State and Local Racial & Identity Profiling Policies, Proposed Report, p. 64 (“Dispatch protocols may also need to emphasize a preference for relying upon a community based crisis response when they receive calls involving a person in mental health crisis or suffering from a mental health disability. ...... Policies should prioritize responses by trained mental health professionals ........ ”) 2 See, e.g., Treatment Advocacy Center, Overlooked in the Undercounted: The Role of Mental Illness in Fatal Law Enforcement Encounters (Dec. 2015). Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 221 Department (“BPD”) was against a person perceived as having a mental illness or impairment.3 Ninety percent of those persons were Black or Latino, and 70% were unarmed.4 In Orange County, over 36% of the serious uses of force for which the Sheriff’s Department reported relevant data were against people both unarmed and perceived by officers to have a mental disability or behavioral health impairment.5 As in Bakersfield, several incidents involved the use of a canine attack, and in the majority of cases, the highest criminal charge brought against the person seriously injured by Sheriff’s deputies was resisting or evading an officer.6 Recent events in Orange County illustrate the perils of relying on law enforcement to respond to mental health calls even when that response is through specialized crisis intervention or mental health teams. Since 2016, the County has relied on the Sheriff’s Department’s “Homeless Outreach Team” to carry out what it has described as its “proactive” approach to behavioral health. In 2018, Sheriff’s deputies assigned to that team stopped Kurt Reinhold for the purported purpose of enforcing a jaywalking violation, then escalated a physical encounter and ultimately killed Mr. Reinhold. Nevertheless, the Sheriff has announced that the Department will be expanding the team, stating: “The Sheriff's Department often gets called to respond to help individuals in the midst of a mental health crisis, and we recognized the need to widen our approach.” The harms associated with law enforcement response to mental health calls extend beyond overt physical violence. Too often, the involvement of law enforcement leads to the filing of criminal charges directly stemming from a mental health crisis (such as “disturbing the peace” or “resisting or evading an officer”), arrest, and/or incarceration.7 Law enforcement contact in response to a mental health call can lead to serious collateral consequences, such as loss of housing or investigation by federal immigration enforcement.8 And the mere presence of uniformed law enforcement (and the associated threat of criminal system punishment or 3 Cal. Dep’t of Justice, Use of Force Reporting Incident Report (2019); ACLU of Southern California, Unconstitutional Patterns & Practices in the Bakersfield Police Department (2021), https://www.aclusocal.org/en/publications/unconstitutional-patterns-and-practices-bakersfield-police-department. 4 Id. 5 Data retrieved from https://openjustice.doj.ca.gov/data. The data is limited to use of force resulting in death or “serious bodily injury,” defined as “a bodily injury that involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ.” Gov’t Code § 12525.2. OCSD left the field pertaining to behavioral health impairment blank for the majority of reported incidents, limiting our analysis. We urge the Board to examine and cross-reference RIPA data to determine whether by doing so it can complete a fuller analysis. 6 Id.; see also Unconstitutional Patterns & Practices in the Bakersfield Police Department at p.8 (describing the use of similar criminal charges). 7 See, e.g., ACLU of Southern California & Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, A New Way Forward (July 2014), p. 1 (citing sources). 8 See, e.g., Alisha Jarwala & Sejal Singh, “When Disability Is a ‘Nuisance’: How Chronic Nuisance Ordinances Push Residents with Disabilities Out of Their Homes,” 54 Harv. C.R.C.L. L. Rev. 875 (2019); Nik Theodore, Insecure Communities: Latino Perceptions of Police Involvement in Immigration Enforcement (2013). Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 222 violence) can be traumatizing and detrimental to the mental health of already vulnerable individuals.9 In San Diego, for example, a 2019 report by Campaign Zero found that a quarter of arrests by the San Diego Police Department for youth were for mental illness.10 Both the San Diego Police Department and San Diego Sheriff’s Department also were more likely to search and use force against people with a perceived mental disability compared to those without a perceived disability.11 In San Diego, the criminalization of people with mental health needs has resulted in over-incarceration which has contributed to San Diego County having one of the highest suicide and death rates in custody in the state.12 An analysis by Disability Rights California found that “detention in San Diego County Jail facilities appears to increase the risk of suicide significantly for San Diego County residents. The jail system’s inmate suicide rate has been nearly eight (8) times higher than the overall suicide rate for San Diego County (13.1 out of 100,000).” Last month, the state auditor agreed to a request from community members and family member of loved ones who had died in custody to audit the state jail practices.13 We urge the Board to examine RIPA data showing not only the rate at which law enforcement use force against persons in mental health crisis, but also the frequency with which law enforcement take criminalizing measures—i.e. arrest or citation—against such persons and in response to mental health calls.14 Additionally, we urge the Board to add to the list of fundamental principles in its proposed report a principle that emphasizes that involvement of law enforcement should be minimized to the extent possible in response to mental health calls.15 In other words, whenever and however the law allows, responses that do not include law enforcement—such as responses led by medics, clinicians, peer support specialists, and community-based responders—should be dispatched in response to mental health calls.16 This principle should apply to both first response and any transport needs. 9 See, e.g., Patrisse Cullors, “Abolition And Reparations: Histories of Resistance, Transformative Justice, And Accountability,” 132 Harv. L. Rev. 1684, 1689 (2019). 10 Samuel Singyawe Campaign Zero, Evaluating Police in San Diego (2019), www.policescorecard.org/sandiego 11 Id. 12 Disability Rights California, Suicides in San Diego County Jail: A System Failing People with Mental Illness: A Disability Rights California Investigation Report (2018), https://www.disabilityrightsca.org/public-reports/san- diego-jail-suicides-report. 13 San Diego Union Tribune, State Auditor To Investigate Deaths At San Diego County Jails, July 1, 2021 available at https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/public-safety/story/2021-07-01/state-legislators-consider-audit-of- san-diego-county-sheriffs-department 14 The Board should consider analysis of both data on stops of persons perceived by the officer as having a relevant disability or impairment, and data concerning stops carried out for the purpose of mental health-related welfare checks or pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150. 15 The majority of law enforcement agencies responding to an LA County EMS Commission survey agreed that individuals in behavioral health crisis would benefit from a response by emergency medical personnel as opposed to law enforcement if there are not acute violence/safety issues. 16 In future reports, the Board may wish to examine any provisions of state law or components of state infrastructure that impede prioritizing dispatch of care-centered responses to mental health calls for service. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 223 Finally, consistent with this principle, we urge the Board to focus its examination of Emerging Crisis Response Models on models that minimize the dispatch and involvement of law enforcement rather than longstanding law enforcement-reliant models. The danger of relying on police specialized teams is well-illustrated by the example of Orange County, described above. Although the proposed report currently references Los Angeles County’s MET co-response teams as an emerging model, the inadequacies of MET have been well-documented for years. The County has been unable to consistently staff MET teams with clinicians, impeding actual co- response.17 Moreover, MET is both costly and unable to timely respond to many mental health calls; as a result, Los Angeles County currently suffers from significant service gaps and is searching for funding to scale up psychiatric mobile response teams separate from the Sheriff’s Department to fill those gaps.18 Several recent tragic incidents illustrate the deadly flaws present in LA County’s current calls for service system. In March of this year, Sheriff’s deputies shot and severely injured Isaias Cervantes, a young man with autism, when family members called for help with a crisis.19 The previous year, Sheriff’s deputies beat and tased to death Eric Briceno when his family called 911 for help with a mental health crisis.20 Instead of focusing on LA County MET as an emerging model, therefore, the Board should examine regional efforts to resource community-based and mental health care-based responses, to avoid and minimize law enforcement response.21 Community-Based Responses to Mental Health Calls We appreciate the proposed report’s attention to community-based crisis response. At the same time, we urge the Subcommittee to revise the proposed report to more clearly recognize the unique and important contributions of community-based crisis responders and to recommend that state and local officials provide additional resources to community-based organizations so they can expand, scale, study, and document the successes of their crisis response efforts. 17 Report of the Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission Regarding the Mental Evaluation Team Program of the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department (2018), https://coc.lacounty.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=NOUC3DWcsps%3d&portalid=35. 18 See Motion: Expanding Alternative Crisis Response in Los Angeles County (June 8, 2021), http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/158865.pdf. 19 Alene Tchekmedyian, “Family of autistic man says deputies were warned of his disabilities before shooting,” L.A. Times (Apr. 7, 2021), https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-04-07/l-a-sheriff-deputy-shooting-mental- disability. 20 Alene Tchekmedyian, “A family called 911 for son’s mental health crisis. They say deputies beat and Tasered him to death,” L.A. Times (Sept. 22, 2020), https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-09-22/eric-briceno-death- sheriffs-deputies. 21 See e.g., Los Angeles County Alternatives to Incarceration Work Group Final Report, Cares First, Jails Last: Health and Racial Justice Strategies for Safer Communities (2020), p.2, https://lacalternatives.org/wp- content/uploads/2020/03/ATI_Full_Report_single_pages.pdf (describing measures to “[u]tilize behavioral health responses for individuals experiencing mental health and/or substance use disorders, homelessness, and other situations caused by unmet needs; avoid and minimize law enforcement responses”). Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 224 Across California, community organizations are leading innovative responses to emergency situations ranging from mental health crisis to housing displacement. The proposed report should use terminology that clearly recognizes these efforts as distinct from responses led by, for example, County mental health agencies.22 The report should also recognize that responses led by community-based organizations are an essential component of a robust and holistic crisis care system in addition to government-led crisis call centers, mobile response teams, and crisis receiving and stabilization facilities. Many vulnerable populations—including people with irregular or uncertain immigration status, people with disabilities, people who are gender nonconforming, people who are formerly incarcerated, people experiencing homelessness, and others disproportionately targeted by law enforcement—face significant barriers to engaging with government first responders because of deep-rooted fear and stigma related to their status. In these circumstances, responses led by community-based organizations can be more accessible, minimize harm, and provide more culturally competent and appropriate services. Some examples of such community-based responses include: • Mental Health First -- In Sacramento and Oakland, Mental Health First manages hotlines for residents in need of immediate mental health intervention. After support teams address the immediate crisis, they work to strengthen the individual’s support system and connect them to resources. • Marin County Cooperation Team (MCCT) -- Formed in response to COVID-19, this comprehensive supportive services organization includes an emergency Crisis Care Team that operates a 24-hour emergency hotline and is a collaboration between public and private sectors to integrate services for people experiencing mental health crises, among other emergent issues. • CAT 911 -- In Los Angeles, the Youth Justice Coalition and community members are mobilizing to build a countywide network of Community Alternatives to 911 or CAT-911 teams to operate as both community-based first responders and to provide ongoing support in response to mental health and other crises. We urge the Board to recommend that the state and localities provide supportive funding to such community-based organizations to strengthen and scale their crisis response efforts.23 The Board should also recommend that the state and local governments support community-based responders to directly receive and respond to crisis calls through their independent hotlines, in light of the valid fears that vulnerable individuals may have related to calling 911, and in light of the lack of developed policies, procedures, and standards for PSAP dispatch related to mental health calls. 22 In no context should law enforcement response be characterized as “community-based crisis response.” 23 See, e.g., California Assembly Bill 118 – The C.R.I.S.E.S. Act (2021), https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB118. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 225 Context & Recommendations Directed at Dispatch The proposed report appropriately recognizes the critical role that dispatchers play in responding to bias-based calls and identifying, triaging, and diverting calls for service that are more appropriate for a care-based response, such as mental health calls. The portions of the proposed report that find a lack of uniform policies, procedures, and standards for dispatchers are of crucial importance. We write to provide additional evidence supporting these findings and to urge the Board to further study and make recommendations directed at the dispatch problems identified. The proposed report states that “[g]iven the important role dispatchers play in responding to calls it is difficult to understand why there are no uniform policies and procedures to create standards for [dispatch] centers.” The proposed report appears to focus on only dispatchers housed in law enforcement agencies overseen by POST; when all dispatchers, including those operating out of fire and medical agencies, are taken into account, the disuniformity of policies and procedures may be even more severe. The Board may wish to examine whether this is the case. The absence of clear guidelines, policies, and procedures for dispatchers has been documented in detail in Los Angeles County. According to one official report, there is no uniform criteria that different LA County agencies use to decide whether a behavioral health emergency call will be dispatched to law enforcement or emergency medical responders.24 A survey of dispatch agencies in LA County found that nearly half did not have any protocol for determining if or when responders with specialized mental health training—law enforcement or otherwise— should be dispatched.25 Only 18% of dispatching agencies in LA County reported having standard protocol for even identifying behavioral health crises.26 We urge the Board to take a closer look at the policies, protocol, and training of individual dispatching agencies to examine whether they adequately address mental health calls and bias- based calls, and to include the results of that survey in its report for 2022 or the following year.27 The proposed report notes that individual agency policies may limit how dispatchers respond to bias-based calls but does not include specific policy recommendations for agencies. The Board should recommend specific policies and goals for dispatcher response, as well as accountability mechanisms to ensure that calls are dispatched according to those recommendations and the fundamental principles articulated in the mental health calls portion of the draft report. Similarly, the Board should examine the sufficiency of POST’s regulatory actions concerning dispatchers. 24 Los Angeles County Emergency Medical Services Commission, Ad Hoc Committee on Prehospital Care of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Emergencies, Final Report (Sept. 2016) (EMS Report), 18. 25 Los Angeles County Emergency Medical Services Commission, Los Angeles County’s 9-1-1 Dispatch and Field Response to Mental Health and Substance Abuse Emergencies Survey (Jan. 17, 2019) (EMS Survey), 5. 26 EMS Report at 18. 27 Compare Subcommittee on State and Local Racial & Identity Profiling Policies, Proposed Report, pp. 2-10 (review of agency bias-free policing policies). Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 226 Relatedly, we urge the Board to take a closer look at whether or not POST has the capacity and expertise to design and implement appropriate training for bias-based calls and mental health calls, especially given that dispatch is not limited to peace officers. Specifically, the Board may wish to examine POST’s process for developing mental health awareness training for dispatchers in light of AB 680 and challenges or obstacles related to that process. The Board should strive to identify whether there are other statewide entities that may be better tasked with dispatcher training and protocol, and it should make related recommendations. Finally, in counties where there are mental health mobile crisis response teams, mental health calls to 911 do not reliably result in dispatch of those teams. Different officials have given varied rationales for the separation between those teams and 911 dispatch. LA County’s EMS Commission has described its psychiatric mobile response teams as “distinctly separate from the 911 system”; according to the Commission, mental health responses “are not accessible in the current 911 system algorithm.”28 Other county mental health agency representatives have stated that the primary obstacle is a lack of dispatcher training and protocol for referring calls to mental health mobile crisis teams; still other county officials have cited legal limitations. The true cause of the failure to integrate mental health responders into emergency dispatch should be a focus of the Board’s future reports on calls for service, along with recommended avenues for restructuring dispatch to facilitate care-based responses, in light of the existing statutory scheme and new legislation.29 *** Thank you for your attention to this comment and to the important issues of bias-based calls and mental health-related calls for service. We look forward to the Board’s consideration of these matters at its upcoming hearings. Sincerely, Adrienna Wong, Senior Staff Attorney ACLU Foundation of Southern California Statewide Police Practices Team Lead 28 EMS Report at 19. This appears to be changing. See Jonathan E. Sherin & Robert Ross, Los Angeles County Alternative Crisis Response Preliminary Report and Recommendations (2020), http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/149254.pdf. 29See Cal. Gov’t Code section 53100(b) (encouraging local governments to “develop and improve emergency communication procedures and facilities in such a manner as to be able to quickly respond to any person calling the telephone number ‘911’ seeking police, fire, medical, rescue, and other emergency services”) (emphasis added); Legislative Analyst’s Office, American Rescue Plan’s Major Health‑Related Funding Provisions (May 6, 2021), https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4425 (describing both federal funding for mobile crisis services and pre- existing state funding for mobile crisis teams); National Suicide Hotline Designation Act of 2020, https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/2661/text. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 227 APPENDIX H – BREAKDOWN OF CIVILIAN COMPLAINTS H.1 Racial and Identity Profiling Civilian Complaints for RIPA Reporting Agencies Table Agency Name Sustained Exonerated Not Sustained Unfounded Alameda County Sheriff's Department 0 0 0 3 Alhambra Police Department 0 0 0 2 Anaheim Police Department 0 1 0 1 Antioch Police Department 0 1 1 0 Arcadia Police Department 0 0 0 1 Bakersfield Police Department 0 0 0 4 Berkeley Police Department 0 0 1 1 Beverly Hills Police Department 0 0 2 2 Brea Police Department 0 0 0 1 Brentwood Police Department 0 0 0 1 Buena Park Police Department 0 0 0 1 Burbank Police Department 0 1 0 2 Cal Poly Pomona, University Police 0 0 0 1 Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, University 0 0 0 1 Police California Highway Patrol 0 37 0 2 Capitola Police Department 0 1 2 1 Carlsbad Police Department 0 1 1 2 Chino Police Department 0 0 0 2 Citrus Heights Police Department 0 0 0 1 Clayton Police Department 0 0 1 0 Clovis Police Department 0 0 0 3 Colton Police Department 0 0 0 3 Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department 0 1 0 0 CSU Chico, University Police 0 0 0 1 CSU Los Angeles, University Police 0 1 2 0 Daly City Police Department 0 0 1 1 Davis Police Department 0 0 0 3 Desert Hot Springs Police Department 0 0 0 1 Downey Police Department 0 0 0 3 El Cerrito Police Department 0 1 0 0 El Dorado County Sheriff's Department 0 0 1 1 El Segundo Police Department 0 0 0 0 Escondido Police Department 0 0 0 1 Fairfield Police Department 1 0 0 7 Fontana Police Department 0 1 1 0 Foothill-DeAnza College Police 0 0 0 0 Department Fountain Valley Police Department 0 0 0 13 Fremont Police Department 0 0 0 0 Fresno County Sheriff's Department 0 1 1 7 Fresno Police Department 0 3 2 6 Fullerton Police Department 0 0 2 5 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 228 Glendale Community College Police 0 0 0 1 Department Glendale Police Department 0 0 0 2 Glendora Police Department 0 0 0 0 Grover Beach Police Department 0 1 0 2 Gustine Police Department 0 0 1 0 Hawthorne Police Department 0 0 0 1 Hayward Police Department 0 0 0 4 Hemet Police Department 0 0 0 0 Hercules Police Department 0 0 0 3 Hermosa Beach Police Department 0 0 0 2 Humboldt County Sheriff's Department 0 3 2 0 Huntington Beach Police Department 0 0 0 1 Imperial County Sheriff's Department 0 0 1 0 Inglewood Police Department 1 0 0 0 Irvine Police Department 0 0 0 1 Kern County Sheriff's Department 0 0 1 2 Kings County Sheriff's Department 0 0 0 1 La Habra Police Department 0 0 0 1 Livermore Police Department 0 0 0 1 Lodi Police Department 0 0 0 0 Long Beach Police Department 0 0 0 4 Los Altos Police Department 0 0 0 1 Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department 1 43 6 2 Los Angeles Police Department 0 1 19 19 Los Angeles World Airport Police 0 0 0 0 Madera Police Department 0 1 0 1 Manteca Police Department 0 0 0 1 Modesto Police Department 0 0 0 1 Monterey Police Department 0 0 0 0 Morgan Hill Police Department 0 0 0 1 Mount Shasta Police Department 0 1 0 0 Mountain View Police Department 0 0 0 1 Napa County Sheriff's Department 0 0 0 3 National City Police Department 0 0 0 0 Nevada County Sheriff's Department 0 0 0 1 Oakland Police Department 0 0 2 93 Oceanside Police Department 0 0 1 0 Ontario Police Department 0 0 0 4 Orange County Sheriff's Department 1 2 0 5 Pacific Grove Police Department 1 0 0 0 Palm Springs Police Department 0 0 1 4 Petaluma Police Department 0 0 0 1 Pismo Beach Police Department 0 0 0 2 Pittsburg Police Department 0 0 0 1 Pleasant Hill Police Department 0 0 0 2 Redding Police Department 0 0 0 0 Redlands Police Department 0 0 0 2 Redondo Beach Police Department 0 1 0 0 Redwood City Police Department 0 0 0 1 Rio Vista Police Department 0 0 1 0 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 229 Riverside Police Department 0 0 1 0 Rohnert Park Police Department 0 0 0 4 Sacramento County Sheriff's Department 0 1 0 2 Sacramento Police Department 0 2 0 8 Salinas Police Department 0 2 0 1 San Bernardino County Sheriff's 0 1 0 63 Department San Bruno Police Department 0 0 0 1 San Diego County Sheriff's Department 0 0 0 44 San Diego Harbor Police 0 1 0 0 San Diego Police Department 0 0 4 14 San Francisco County Sheriff's 0 0 0 0 Department San Francisco Police Department 6 2 7 12 San Joaquin County Sheriff's Department 0 3 0 0 San Jose Police Department 0 0 3 28 San Leandro Police Department 0 0 0 2 San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's 0 0 2 2 Department San Mateo County Sheriff's Department 0 1 1 0 San Mateo Police Department 0 1 0 2 San Pablo Police Department 0 0 0 0 Santa Barbara County Sheriff's 0 0 0 0 Department Santa Barbara Police Department 0 0 1 2 Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department 1 1 0 5 Santa Clara Police Department 0 0 0 2 Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Department 0 0 0 1 Santa Cruz Police Department 0 0 0 0 Santa Maria Police Department 0 0 0 2 Santa Rosa Police Department 0 1 0 2 Sierra Madre Police Department 0 0 0 1 Signal Hill Police Department 0 0 1 1 Simi Valley Police Department 0 0 0 1 Siskiyou Sheriff's Department 0 0 0 1 Solano County Sheriff's Department 1 0 0 4 Sonoma County Sheriff's Department 0 0 0 0 South Pasadena Police Department 0 0 0 0 Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department 1 1 1 1 Stockton Police Department 0 0 0 0 Suisun City Police Department 0 0 0 1 Sunnyvale Police Department 0 0 1 0 Tiburon Police Department 0 0 0 0 Torrance Police Department 0 1 0 9 Tracy Police Department 0 0 1 0 Tulare County Sheriff's Department 0 0 1 0 Tulare Police Department 0 0 0 3 UC Irvine, University Police 0 0 0 2 UC Los Angeles, University Police 0 0 1 2 UC San Francisco, University Police 0 0 0 1 UC Santa Cruz, University Police 0 0 0 0 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 230 Union City Police Department 0 0 1 0 Vacaville Police Department 0 0 0 3 Vallejo Police Department 0 0 0 2 Ventura County Sheriff's Department 0 11 0 4 Walnut Creek Police Department 0 0 0 2 Watsonville Police Department 0 0 0 3 Weed Police Department 0 0 0 1 West Sacramento Police Department 0 0 0 4 Woodland Police Department 0 0 0 2 Yolo County Sheriff's Department 0 0 0 1 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 231 APPENDIX I – WAVES 3 AND 4 CIVILIAN COMPLAINTS FORMS Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 232 I.1 Alameda County Sheriff’s Office Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 233 ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Citizen's Complaint Form COMPLAINANT: Name Sex Race DOB Driver’s License # PFN Address City Zip Home Phone # Cell Phone # E-mail EMPLOYEE(S): Names or Descriptions WITNESS(ES): Name Address Phone Name Address Phone Name Address Phone INCIDENT LOCATION: DATE: TIME: DETAILS OF COMPLAINT: (Attach additional pages if necessary) PD 47 (Rev 02/14) (OVER) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 234 CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE, Section 47.5 Defamation Action by Peace Officer Notwithstanding Section 47, a peace officer may bring an action for defamation against an individual who has filed a complaint with that officer's employing agency alleging misconduct, criminal conduct, or incompetence, if that complaint is false, the complaint was made with knowledge that it was false and that it was made with spite, hatred or ill will. Knowledge that the complaint was false may be proved by showing that the complainant had no reasonable grounds to believe the statement was true and that the complainant exhibited a reckless disregard for ascertaining the truth. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE A COMPLAINT AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER FOR ANY IMPROPER POLICE CONDUCT. CALIFORNIA LAW REQUIRES THIS AGENCY TO HAVE A PROCEDURE TO INVESTIGATE CITIZENS' COMPLAINTS. YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO A WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF THIS PROCEDURE. THIS AGENCY MAY FIND AFTER INVESTIGATION THAT THERE IS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO WARRANT ACTION ON YOUR COMPLAINT; EVEN IF THAT IS THE CASE, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE COMPLAINT AND HAVE IT INVESTIGATED IF YOU BELIEVE AN OFFICER BEHAVED IMPROPERLY. CITIZENS' COMPLAINTS AND ANY REPORTS OR FINDINGS RELATING TO COMPLAINTS MUST BE RETAINED BY THIS AGENCY FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS. Per 832.7 PC, complainants are only entitled to be notified of the findings (results) of the investigations, as the contents of all personnel investigations shall remain confidential. I have read and understood the above statement. Complainant's Signature Date COMPLAINT PROCEDURE: If the incident occurred more than 30 days prior to this complaint, include a description of the circumstances causing the delay in the above narrative. After the complaint has been received by a Sheriff's Office employee, a copy shall be returned to the complainant. The complaint will then be sent to an investigator. When completed, the investigation will be reviewed by command staff and forwarded to the Sheriff for a finding. A letter outlining the allegation(s) and finding(s) will then be sent to the complainant. COMPLAINT RECEIVED BY: Name Date Time In Person Phone Mail Other COMPLAINANT SENT/GIVEN COPY BY: Name Date Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 235 I.2 Anaheim Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 236 ANAHEIM POLICE DEPARTMENT MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEF OF POLICE The police officer of today works in an extremely complex society. A goal of the Anaheim Police Department is to ensure that the public is served in a most efficient and effective manner by highly trained police officers. To assist us in achieving this goal, you, as an individual, can help by letting us know if you have a complaint. Be assured that your complaint will be quickly, professionally, and objectively investigated in order to arrive at all the facts. Appropriate action will then be taken with the objective to improve our service to the community. JORGE CISNEROS CHIEF OF POLICE POLICE COMPLAINT PROCEDURE HOW DO I FILE A COMPLAINT? If you wish to file a formal complaint, it will be necessary for you to complete a Personnel Complaint form. You may obtain this form at the front counter of the police department, the City Clerk's Office, any Anaheim Public Library, the Community Services Office, or by calling or writing the Anaheim Police Department and requesting that a form be sent to you. When the Personnel Complaint form is filled out, it should be delivered to the Anaheim Police Department, 425 S. Harbor Blvd., or mailed to P.O. Box 3369, Anaheim, CA 92803-3369. WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE OFFICER? It will depend on what the officer did. If the officer's actions were criminal, he/she could be dealt with in the same way as any other citizen. If the officer's actions were improper but not criminal, he/she may be disciplined by the Chief of Police. If the officer is falsely accused, the complainant may face civil and/or criminal action. 425 S. Harbor Blvd WILL I BE TOLD OF THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION? Yes. You will Anaheim, CA 92805 receive a letter from the Chief of Police advising you of the disposition of your T: (714) 765-1900 complaint F: (714) 765-1690 www.anaheimpd.org Commu nit y, Teamwor k, Excell e nc e Racial and IdentityProfilingAd visory Board Ann ual Re port 2021Appendices 237 ANAHEIM POLICE DEPARTMENT UN MENSAJE DEL JEFE DE POLICIA El policia de hoy un dia trabaja en una sociedad compleja. Una de las metas del Departamento de Policia de Anaheim, es la de asegurar que al publico se le sirva de manera eficiente & efectiva por un cuerpo de policia lo mas altamente entrenado posible. Usted, como una persona particular, puede ayudarnos a lograr esta meta, haciendonos saber si tiene alguna queja. Quiero afirmar que se investigara rapidamente, profesionalmente y objectivamente, para asi poder descubrir los hechos. Accion apropiada sera tomada con el objetivo de mejorar el servicio a la comunidad. JORGE CISNEROS CHIEF OF POLICE PROCEDIMIENTO PARA PRESENTAR UNA QUEJA ¿COMO REGISTRO UNA QUEJA? Si usted desea registrar una queja formal, sera necesario que complete una forma que usted puede obtener en la oficina de la policia de la ciudad de Anaheim, la oficina del escribano de la ciudad (office of the City Clerk), cualquier sucursal de la biblioteca, la oficina de servicios de la comunidad, o puede llamar o escribir al Departmento de Policia de Anaheim para solicitar una forma por correo. Cuando complete la forma, devuelva al departamento de policia de Anaheim, 425 South Harbor Boulevard, o mandela por correo al P.O. Box 3369, Anaheim, CA 92803-3369. ¿QUE LE PASARA AL AGENTE DE LA POLICIA? Esto depende en lo que haya hecho. Si cometio una accion criminal, se le tratara igualmente como cualquier otra persona que haya cometido una accion similar. Si fue una accion impropia, el Jefe de la Policia se encargara de disciplinarlo. Si por el contrario, se determina que usted hizo una queja falsa a sabiendas, se le puede someter a un proceso civil o criminal. 425 S. Harbor Blvd ¿ME DIRAN EL RESULTADO DE LA INVESTIGACION? Si. Usted recibira una Anaheim, CA 92805 carta del Jefe de la Policia, donde le comunicaran la accion que tomo tocante su queja. T: (714) 765-1900 F: (714) 765-1690 www.anaheimpd.org Community, Teamwork, Excellence Racial and IdentityProfilingAdvisory BoardAnnual Report 2021Appendices 238 ANAHEIM POLICE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL CO PLAINT/QUEJAS CONTRA EL PERSONAL Case Number: Print your NAME, ADDRESS and PHONE NUMBERS, BUSINESS & HOME/ En letra de molde escriba su NOMBRE, DIRECCION Y NUMERO de TELEFONO de su CASA y TRABAJO Print the DATE, TIME and LOCATION OF THE INCIDENT/ Escriba en letra de molde LA FECHA, HORA y LUGAR DEL INCIDENTE Print the NAMES, ADDRESSES and PHONE NUMBER of any Witnesses/ Escriba en letra de molde NOMBRES, DOMICILIOS y NUMEROS DE TELEFONO de Testigos DESCRIBE the incident in detail. Begin in the space below and if more space is needed, continue on a second sheet. Sign all pages. / Describa como sucedio el incidente, empiece en el espacio de abajo, y si necesita mas espacio, continue en una segunda hoja. Firme todas las paginas. Is the complaint based on racial or identity bias? Yes ☐ No ☐ / Existe un prejuicio racial o de identidad en esta queja? Si ☐ No ☐ You have the right to make a complaint against a police officer for any improper police conduct. California law requires this agency to have a procedure to investigate citizens' complaints. You have the right to a written description of this procedure. This agency may find, after investigation, that there is not enough evidence to warrant action on your complaint. Even if that is the case, you have the right to make the complaint and have it investigated if you believe an officer behaved improperly. Citizen complaints and any reports or findings relating to complaints must be retained by this agency for at least five years. I have read and understood the above statements, and have presented true and accurate facts. Usted tiene el derecho de hacer una queja en contra de un oficial de policia por cualquier conducta inapropriada. La ley del estado de California requiere que esta agencia tenga un proceso para investigar quejas de civiles. Usted tiene el derecho a una descripcion escrita de este proceso. Esta agencia puede encontrar despues de investigar, que no hay suficientes pruebas para tomar accion en su queja. Aunque ese sea el caso, usted tiene el derecho de hacer una queja y tenerla investigada si usted cree que un oficial de policia se comporto de una manera inapropriada. Quejas de civiles y cualesquier reporte o contacto relacionados con quejas tienen que ser conservadas por esta agencia por lo menos de cinco anos. Yo he leido y entendido las declaraciones contenidas en esta pagina y he presentado datos exactos y veridicos. Signature/ Firma Date/ Fecha FORM ISSUED BY: DATE: TIME: FORM RECEIVED BY: DATE: TIME: ASSIGNED TO: DISTRIBUTION: WHITE- Internal Affairs, CANARY- Complainant APD-296 Rev. 7/16 When the Personnel Complaint for is filled out, it should be delivered to the Anaheim Police Department, 425 S. Harbor Blvd. Anaheim, CA Or mailed to: Anaheim Police Department P.O. Box 3369, Anaheim, CA 92803-3369. Attention: I.A. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 239 I.3 Fresno County Sheriff’s Office Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 240 Margaret Mims Sheriff-Coroner CITIZEN COMPLAINT PROCEDURE HOW TO SUBMIT A COMPLAINT A complaint of misconduct by Sheriff’s Office personnel must be made by submitting the Fresno County Sheriff’s Office Citizen Complaint Form. You may contact the Internal Affairs Unit at the Fresno County Sheriff’s Headquarters Building, 2200 Fresno Street, Fresno CA 93721, or by calling (559) 600-8031 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on weekdays (Holidays excepted). During non-business hours, you may contact the Watch Commander at the same location by calling (559) 600-1650. The following information is needed to process your complaint: 1. Your name, address, and telephone number. 2. The location, date, and time of the alleged incident. 3. The name, address, and telephone number (if available) of all witnesses to the alleged incident. 4. The names or other identification of Sheriff’s Office personnel involved. 5. All details of the alleged incident which prompts your complaint. 6. Your signature in the allotted space on both sides of the complaint form. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE Your complaint will be investigated and you will be advised of the disposition when the investigation has been completed. After completion, all investigative reports are maintained for a period of five years. CONCLUSION Your information regarding misconduct helps protect the community from possible misconduct by Sheriff’s Office personnel. Thorough and impartial investigative procedures help protect Sheriff’s Office personnel from unwarranted charges while performing their duties properly. SO-256 (1/2016) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 241 FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE MARGARET MIMS, SHERIFF CITIZEN COMPLAINT FORM For Official Use Only Reporting Person (Last, First, Middle Name) Date of Birth Age I.A. File # Residence Address (Address and Zip Code) Telephone C/R # Business or School Telephone Date/Time of Complaint VICTIM OF ALLEGED INCIDENT Name (Last, First, Middle Name) Date of Birth Arrested ( ) Yes ( ) No Residence Address and Zip Code Telephone Attorney or Representative Business or School Telephone Telephone NAME OF EMPLOYEE (If known) Name Division Rank Badge # Car # Description WITNESS Name Address Telephone Date & Time of Incident Location of Incident Details of complaint. It is important to include as many factual details as possible so that the incident may be fully investigated. Place complaint on reverse side of form. If necessary, please use additional pages. Also read and sign admonishment on reverse side of form. Signature of Reporting Person Signature of Parent/Guardian (if under age 18) Signature of Officer Receiving Complaint Date RACIAL OR IDENTITY PROFILING Does this Citizen Complaint involve Racial or Identity Profiling? ( ) Yes ( ) No If “Yes” which of the following best describes the type of Racial or Identity Profiling. Circle those that apply. Race / Color / Ethnicity / National Origin / Age / Religion / Gender Identity / Sexual Orientation / Mental or Physical Disability SO-256 (1/2016) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 242 File No. Date of Complaint ADVISORY TO COMPLAINANT Fresno County Sheriff’s Office requires that the statements and reports about officers or other personnel be verified by a declaration “under penalty of perjury” confirming all statements and reports communicated by you in this Complaint Form are true and correct. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE A COMPLAINT AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER FOR ANY IMPROPER POLICE CONDUCT. CALIFORNIA LAW REQUIRES THIS AGENCY TO HAVE A PROCEDURE TO INVESTIGATE CITIZENS’ COMPLAINTS. YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO A WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF THIS PROCEDURE. THIS AGENCY MAY FIND AFTER INVESTIGATION THAT THERE IS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO WARRANT ACTION ON YOUR COMPLAINT; EVEN IF THAT IS THE CASE, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE COMPLAINT AND HAVE IT INVESTIGATED IF YOU BELIEVE AN OFFICER BEHAVED IMPROPERLY. CITIZEN COMPLAINTS AND ANY REPORTS OR FINDINGS RELATING TO COMPLAINTS MUST BE RETAINED BY THIS AGENCY FOR AT LEAST FIVE (5) YEARS. “PLEASE BE AWARE THAT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA LAW EVERY PERSON WHO, BEING REQUIRED BY LAW TO MAKE ANY RETURN, STATEMENT, OR REPORT, UNDER OATH, WILLFULLY MAKES AND DELIVERS ANY SUCH RETURN, STATEMENT, OR REPORT, PURPORTING TO BE UNDER OATH, KNOWING THE SAME TO BE FALSE IN ANY PARTICULAR, IS GUILTY OF PERJURY, WHETHER SUCH OATH WAS IN FACT TAKEN OR NOT. California Penal Code § 129.” HAVING READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE FOREGOING WARNING, I WISH TO PROCEED TO VERIFY EACH STATEMENT BY ME SET FORTH ABOVE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY. “I hereby declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the foregoing statements and reports by me are true and correct.” [Print and Sign] SO-256 (1/2016) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 243 I.4 Kern County Sheriff’s Office Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 244 Kern County Sheriff's Office Citizen Complaint Procedure Sheriff's Policy & Procedure D-600 Attachment "A" The Kern County Sheriff's Office strives to maintain a relationship of trust and confidence with the community. In keeping with this goal, it is the policy of the department to diligently investigate all personnel complaints in a fair and impartial manner. The preferred method of registering a complaint is to do so in person at the Personnel Division, 1350 Norris Road, Building A, Bakersfield, during regular business hours. Realizing this is not always possible, complaint forms are available to the public at every Sheriff's station. The completed complaint form can be sealed in an envelope marked "Internal Affairs" and delivered to any office of the Kern County Sheriff's Office. Personnel complaint forms may also be obtained and returned through the mail or by calling (661) 391-7470. When a complaint is received by this department, the Sheriff's Administration assigns it to an investigator. The investigation is monitored by the administration and reviewed by the Sheriff-Coroner or his designee. The complainant is notified by mail when the investigation is concluded. Be assured that if the investigation finds the employee to be culpable, appropriate disciplinary action is taken. Personnel complaint forms may be obtained and filed at any office of the Kern County Sheriff's Office, or mailed to: Kern County Sheriff's Office Personnel Division/Internal Affairs Unit 1350 Norris Road Bakersfield, CA 93308 For further information or complaint forms, please call (661) 391-7470. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 245 Investigation Due Date: Kern County Sheriff's Office Personnel Complaint Crime Report# _ Complainant's Name: D08: Address: City: Zip: _ Phone Number: Home Work: Other: Location of Occurrence: Date/Time: Personnel: (Employee's Name, Badge or Car Number) Nature of Complaint: (Use additional sheets if necessary) You have the right to make a complaint against a Sheriffs Office employee. California law requires this agency to have a procedure to investigate citizen complaints against peace officers. You have a right to a written description of this procedure. This agency may find after investigation that there is not enough evidence to warrant action on your complaint; even if that is the case, you have the right to make the complaint and have it investigated if you believe an officer behaved improperly. Citizen complaints and any reports of findings relating to complaints must be retained by this agency for at least five years. I have read and understood the above statement. Date: Complainant's Signature Received by: Date: Copy Given To: Date: Authorized: Yes No By: Date:. (Sheriff, Undersheriff, Chief Deputy) Reviewed by Investigations Bureau Chief· Date: Authorized For: Adverse Comment: Handle by Supervisor: Handle by Supervisor: □ Pre-Investigation □ Not Sustained □ DOC □ Verbal Counselling □ Unfounded □ Written Reprimand □ At Supervisors Discretion □ PDSA □ Exonerated And Clear As: □ Divisional IA For Policy Violation: □ Not Sustained □ □ □ IA Investigation Unfounded □ □ Exonerated □ □ POBR Memo □ □ □ Subject Employee Signature: Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Ap pen Ddiactees: 246_ Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 247 I.5 Los Angeles World Airport Police Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 248 4/27/2021 LAWA Official Site | Commendation or Complaint Form (httpsC://o wwm w. plawl ea. otreg) this form if you would like to submit a complaint or commendation. *Reason: *Name: Name Cellphone: Cellphone Homephone: Homephone Email Address: Email addresss Mailing Address: Mailing address *Date of Incident (MM/DD/YYYY): MM/DD/YYYY *Time Of Incident (HH:MM AM/PM): --:-- -- *Location Of Incident: Location Of Incident *Oficer's Name: Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 249 https://www.lawa.org/groups-and-divisions/airport-police/commendation-or-complaint-form 1/3 4/27/2021 LAWA Official Site | Commendation or Complaint Form Oficer's Name Summary of Incident: Best Time to Contact (HH:MM AM/PM): --:-- -- reCAPTCHA Thank you for choosing LAWA! RESET SUBMIT Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 250 https://www.lawa.org/groups-and-divisions/airport-police/commendation-or-complaint-form 2/3 4/27/2021 LAWA Official Site | Commendation or Complaint Form Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 251 https://www.lawa.org/groups-and-divisions/airport-police/commendation-or-complaint-form 3/3 I.6 Riverside Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 252 RIVERSIDE POLICE DEPARTMENT Complaint File Number: For PD Use Only COMPLAINT CONTROL FORM Police Report/Cite Number: Location of Incident: Date: Time: Received By: For PD Use Only Date/Time: Routed to: Subject Employee: ID# Complainant: Date of Birth: Sex: Race: Address: City: State: Zip Code: Home Phone: Cell / Business Phone: Business Address: Email Address: Witness: Date of Birth: Sex: Race: Address: City: State: Zip Code: Home Phone: Cell / Business Phone: Business Address: Witness: Date of Birth: Sex: Race: Address: City: State: Zip Code: Home Phone: Cell / Business Phone: Business Address: Complaint: Signature of Complainant (Optional): Email Form Reset Form Print Mail to: Riverside Police Department - Internal Affairs, 4102 Orange Street, Riverside, CA 92501 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 253 You may also submit a complaint by telephoning the Department at (951) 351-6050 (Watch Commander, 24 hours). Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 254 Additional Information: Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 255 I.7 San Francisco Sheriff’s Office Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 256 Office of the Sheriff City and County of San Francisco Citizen complaint statement against an employee or Sheriff’s Office action Name: Telephone: Last, First, Middle Initial Address: Street (Apt number if it applies) City: State: Zip: / / Ethnicity Gender Identification # Date of Birth Incident information Date of incident: / / Time: Location: Were you injured: YES or NO If yes, please describe your injuries: When did you seek medical attention? Date: / / Where did you seek medical attention? Physician: Name of medical facility: Please circle below: I am willing to sign a medical records release to assist in the investigation of my complaint. YES NO I have names of witnesses and will provide them to assist in the investigation. YES NO This complaint is against a single member of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office. YES NO This complaint is against more than one member of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office. YES NO Complainant’s statement: Please describe the incident, including names, witnesses and other factual supporting information. Use reverse side and attach additional sheets to this form if more space is needed. 1 Case #: Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 256 Complainant's statement continued: (STATEMENT CONTINUED ON ATTACHED PAGES) YES NO Penal Code 148.6 – False allegation of police conduct (Notice) You have the right to make a complaint against a Deputy Sheriff for any improper peace officer conduct California law requires this agency to have a procedure to investigate citizen’s complaints. You have a right to a written description of this procedure. California law requires this agency to have a procedure to investigate citizen’s complaints. You have a right to a written description of this procedure. California law requires this agency to have a procedure to investigate citizen’s complaints. You have a right to a written description of this procedure. This agency may find after investigation that there is not enough evidence to warrant action on your complaint; even if that is the case, you have the right to make a complaint and have it investigated if you believe an officer behaved improperly. Citizen complaints and any reports or findings relating to complaints must be retained by this agency for at least five years. It is against the law to make a complaint that you know to be false. If you make a complaint against an officer knowing that it is false, you can be prosecuted on a misdemeanor charge. / / PRINT NAME: FIRST, LAST SIGNATURE DATE SHERIFF’S PERSONNEL TO COMPLETE THE INFORMATION BELOW THIS LINE Sheriff’s employee who received complaint: Star#: Date: / / Time: Facility/Unit: 2 Case #: Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 257 Photos: Y N Recorded interview: Y N Medical records release: Y N Assisted with written statement: Y N Complainant was able to identify subjects by name or star number at the time of interview: Y N Complainant was given a copy of written complaint: Y N 3 Case #: Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 257 I.8 Santa Ana Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 259 SANTA ANA POLICE DEPARTMENT CITIZEN’S COMPLAINT PROCEDURE AND FORM MESSAGE FORM THE CHIEF OF POLICE The Santa Ana Police Department is committed to creating and maintaining a safe, secure, and enjoyable environment for community members and visitors alike. We strive to provide fair, courteous, responsive, and effective service equally to all people while observing each individual’s dignity and worth. Therefore, it is the policy of the Santa Ana Police Department to accept and thoroughly investigate all complaints of alleged misconduct by any member of the department. The complaint process has two goals: To correct improper employee conduct and to protect employees from unwarranted criticism when their actions were lawful and justified. The packet will provide you with the necessary information you will need to file a personnel complaint with the department. You can be assured that your complaint will be given our full and complete attention. Should you have any questions about your complaint or the complaint process you are encouraged to contact the Internal Affairs Division at 714-245-8011. David Valentin CHIEF OF POLICE Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 260 SANTA ANA POLICE DEPARTMENT CITIZEN’S COMPLAINT PROCEDURE AND FORM The complaint form, which is the last page of this packet, should be used to file your complaint. You can attach as many additional pages as you need, along with any supporting evidence you might have. A copy of your complaint will either be given to you at the time you file the complaint or by mail. After you complete the complaint form, sign and mail it to the address below, or bring it directly to the Police Department. MAIL COMPLAINT FORM TO: SANTA ANA POLICE DEPARTMENT – M97 INTERNAL AFFAIRS DIVISION P.O. BOX 1981 SANTA ANA, CA 92702 SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT PROCESS After your complaint has been filed, it is assigned to be investigated. All available witnesses will be contacted, and any physical or other relevant evidence including records, reports, recordings and computer data will be collected and reviewed. You will be personally contacted by the investigating supervisor for an interview. The completed investigation report is sent to the accused employee’s manager for review and recommendation. The final disposition on the case will be made by the Chief of Police. When a complaint is sustained, the Chief will determine and administer appropriate corrective and/or disciplinary action up to, and including, termination. State law generally requires the complaint investigation to be completed within one year of the Department becoming aware of it; however, the Chief of Police can modify this time frame depending on the complexity and sensitivity of the investigation or due to extenuating circumstances. After the investigation has been completed and the Chief has made a final decision on the case, you will be notified of the results by mail. If the employee receives disciplinary action as a result of your complaint, they have a right to appeal. This may include a hearing before the City Personnel Board, and you may be required to appear before the Board as a witness. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 261 CITIZEN’S COMPLAINT PROCEDURES HOW DO I FILE A COMPLAINT? We would prefer to talk with you about your complaint in person; however, complaints will be accepted by mail, telephone, or via the Department’s internet web page, http://www.ci.santaana.ca.us/pd/commendationorcomplaint.asp . Concerns can often be addressed to the complaining party’s satisfaction without requiring a formal complaint. You can contact the on-duty Watch Commander at 714-245-8700 to initiate or inquire about filing a complaint. WHO CAN MAKE A COMPLAINT? Anyone can file a complaint, if they truly and honestly believe a police employee has acted improperly. WHO INVESTIGATES A CITIZEN’S COMPLAINT? Complaints of alleged misconduct are typically investigated by Internal Affairs Division. Their investigation is reviewed by the manager of the involved employee and the Chief of Police. WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE EMPLOYEE? That will depend on the results of the investigation. If the employee is found to be at fault, the complaint will be SUSTAINED and the appropriate corrective and/or disciplinary action will be taken. If they acted properly, they will be EXONERATED. If the facts show that the complaint is false, the complaint will be UNFOUNDED. In those cases where the department is unable to determine the validity of the complaint and cannot arrive at any other conclusions, the complaint will be NOT SUSTAINED. If the investigation concludes that the involved employee’s conduct was not misconduct but rather an issue of department service procedure, the department may revise the applicable policy or procedure. WHAT IS MY COMPLAINT INVOLVES CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR? The District Attorney’s Office may be consulted on any complaint that alleges criminal conduct on the part of any employee. The District Attorney’s Office may conduct an independent criminal investigation while the internal investigation is pending. WILL I BE TOLD OF THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION? YES – At the conclusion of the investigation and review by the Chief of Police, you will be notified of the results by mail as required by law. Due to legal restriction, you will only be given the finding of the investigation of whether your complaint was SUSTAINED, UNFOUNDED, EXONERATED, NOT SUSTAINED, or is one of SERVICE OR PROCEDURE. The department is prohibited by law from revealing specific personnel actions taken against an employee. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 262 CITIZEN COMPLAINT FORM NAME HOME ADDRESS WORK ADDRESS HOME PHONE WORK PHONE CELL PHONE EMAIL DATE OF BIRTH INVOLVED EMPLOYEE(S) NAME ID# NAME ID# DESCRIPTION IF NAME IS UNKNOWN LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE DATE OF OCCURRENCE TIME DESCRIPTION OF EVENT (USE ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY) You have the right to make a complaint against a police officer for any improper police conduct. California law requires this agency to have a procedure to investigate citizens’ complaints. You have a right to a written description of this procedure. This agency may find after investigation that there is not enough evidence to warrant action on your complaint; even if that is the case, you have the right to make the complaint and have it investigated if you believe an officer behaved improperly. Citizen complaints and any reports or findings related to the complaints must be retained by this agency for at least five years. I have read and understand the above statement, and have presented true and accurate facts. YOUR SIGNATURE DATE OFFICE USE ONLY SAPD EMPLOYEE RECEIVING COMPLAINT DATE TIME COPY OF COMPLAINT GIVEN TO COMPLAINANT: YES NO Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 263 I.9 Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 264 Santa Clara County Office of the Sheriff Internal Affairs Division TheSanta Clara CountySheriff s Office isresponsibleforprotecting thelives of thecitizensofSanta Clara County. Ourdeputies are highly trained and educated. Theyserve with professional pride, and theywant you, thepublic, toshare thepride. Thedeputies assigned toField Operations respondtomorethan177,751calls for service annually. Deputies serve as arbitrators in thousands of cases when theyareasked toresolve differences between individuals orgroups. Many times the decisions made bythe deputies will restrict the freedom and liberty of thesepersons. Often thesedecisions materially affect the course of people's lives. We fully realize thatour involvement in these complex and often emotionally charged situations maynotalways result in a levelofperformance you, thepublic, have grown toexpect. For thisreason, the Sheriff s Office has a well-defined procedure for assisting people whowish tovoice theirgrievances againstouroperations, policies, oremployee conduct. All investigations are thorough andobjective andareaimed atmaintaining public confidence and departmental Integrity. The goal is neither tocondemn nor toexonerate, butrather to identify and evaluate all the facts surrounding the incident in question. Effect on Criminal Prosecution: Theinvestigation within theSheriff's Office of theconduct of its’ officersand the District Attorney’s prosecution of a criminal caseare two entirely separate matters. If aperson arrested by the Sheriff s Office files a public complaint against those officers, suchactions will innomanner affect theprosecutor's independent decision toproceed with thecriminal action. Complaint Obligation: Amandatory requirement in themaking of a personal complaint againstan officer is that It be made as accurately and honestly as possible. Procedure: Everyperson has the right tolodge a complaint against either theSheriff s Office oranyindividual member employed bythedepartment. Complaintforms are available atall Sheriff's Officefacilities. Whilepersonal contact is desirable, Initial complaints maybemade bytelephone, letter, or the Internet. The attached form should be completed and returned to the Internal Affairs Unit. Whena complaintisreceived, itis forwarded to the office of Internal Affairs Investigations. A thorough investigation will be conducted. Uponcompletion of theinvestigation, all findings aredirected throughdivisionalsupervisors, along with their respective recommendations, totheSheriff for her final decision. In allcases theperson making thecomplaint Is Informed of Its final disposition to the extent allowed by thelaw. Although department Investigators will exert every effort touncover the truthof such situations, in those instances where the complainant feels that a proper investi9ation hasnot been conducted, the Sheriff s Office urges that person to seekfurther recourse through anyof theoutside agencies listed below. Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office Equal Opportunity Department Santa Clara County Human Relations 55 W. Younger Avenue 2310 North First Street, Suite 101 Commission San Jose, CA 95110 San Jose, CA 95131 (408) 993-4840 2310 North First Street, Suite 100 (408) 808-4930 https://www.sccgov.org/sites/esa/departments_ San Jose, CA 95131 (408) 993-4100 https://www.sccgov.org/sites/sheriff/Pages/sheriff. and https://www.sccgov.org/sites/ohr/human aspx _programs/equal_opportunity/Pages/eod.aspx %20relations%20commission/Pages/default.a spx Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office Federal Bureau of Investigations Santa Clara Valley Chapter of the 70 W. Hedding Street 2479 E Bayshore Rd #820 Americans Civil Liberties Union San Jose, CA 95110 Palo Alto, CA 94303 P.O. Box 5303 (408) 299-7400 (650) 251-9520 San Jose CA 95150 https://www.sccgov.org/sites/da/Pages/DA-office- https://www.fbi.gov/ 408-462-2581 site-home-page.aspx https://www.aclu.org/ California Department of Justice U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity P.O. Box 944255 Commission See Phone Directory for Attorneys Sacramento, CA 94244 96 N. Third St., Suite 250 (916) 322-3360 San Jose, CA 95112 https://oag.ca.gov/contact 1-800-669-4000 https://www.eeoc.gov/ Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 265 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMPLAINT FORM Date Complaint Received: Date of Incident: Time Complaint Received: Time of Incident: Location of Incident: INVOLVED EMPLOYEE(S): 1. Badge #: 2. Badge #: COMPLAINANT: Name: Address: City: State: Zip: Phone: Alternate Phone: WITNESS: Name: Address: City: State: Zip: Phone: Alternate Phone: STATEMENT/DETAILS: (Provide brief overview of Incident) Complaint Form and On-Line Form available at: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/sheriff/Pages/iau.aspx Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 266 I.10 Stockton Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 267 If returning this form in person, we request you contact the on-duty Watch Commander. Your complaint will then either be forwarded to the employee’s supervisor for inquiry or to the Professional Standards Section. If your concern stems from an arrest or citation issued, it may not be investigated until the legal matter has been resolved. Questions concerning the complaint process may be directed to the Professional Standards Section, (209) 937-8697. LAST Name, First, Middle Home Phone Work Phone Address City/Zip Cell Phone Date/Time Incident Occurred Location of Occurrence Report/Citation Number Police Officer/Employee Name(s) Witness Name (LAST, First, Middle) Address City/Zip Phone Number (Home/Work/Cell) Witness Name (LAST, First, Middle) Address City/Zip Phone Number (Home/Work/Cell) Give a brief narrative of the events that led to this complaint. You may add additional sheets as necessary. Are you alleging racial or identity profiling (yes/no): If you are, please indicate the specific type(s) of profiling alleged (Race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability): In cases where it has been clearly shown a complaint was false and filed maliciously against an officer, that officer is entitled to file a civil action for defamation of character, in accordance with Section 47.5 of the Civil Code. I have read and understand the above statement, which I have made of my own free will, and the facts contained therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Complainant’s Signature X Date Signature of Parent/Guardian (if complainant is under 18 years of age) Complaint Received by Date Mail to: Stockton Police Department, Professional Standards Section, 22 East Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA 95202 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 268 Si devuelve este formulario en persona solicitamos que se comunique con el Comandante de Vigilancia. Su queja sera dirigida al supervisor de el empleado para averiguacion o a la Sección de Normas Profesionales para ser investigada. Si la queja es el resultado de un arresto o infracción, es possible que su queja no sea investigada hasta que los procedimientos legales hallan terminado. Preguntas acerca de el procedimiento de quejas pueden ser dirigidas a la Sección de Normas Profesionales, (209)937-8697. APELLIDO, Primer Nombre Telefono de Casa Telefono de Trabajo Domicilio Ciudad/Zona Postal Telefono cellular Fecha/Hora de Ocurrencia Lugar de Ocurrencia Numero de Reporte Nombre de el Policia/Empleado Nombre de el Testigo (APELLIDO, Primer Nombre) Domicilio Ciudad/Zona Postal Telefono (Casa/Trabajo/Cell) Nombre de el Testigo (APELLIDO, Primer Nombre) Domicilio Ciudad/Zona Postal Telefono (Casa/Trabajo/Cell) De una breve descripción de los hechos referentes a su queja. Puede agregar hojas adicionales si es necesario. Esta elegando perfiles de identidad racial? (si/no): Si estas, por favor indique el tipo especifico de perfil esta elegando (raza, color, origen etnico, origen nacional, edad, religion, genero, identidad o expresion, orientacion sexual, discapacidad fisica o mental): En casos donde se demuestre claramente que una queja es falsa y a sido hecha maliciosamente en contra de un policía, el policía tiene el derecho de presentar una queja civil por defamacion de persona, de acuerdo a la Sección 47.5 de el Código Civil. He leído y comprendo esta declaración. Mi declaración escrita contiene hechos que son verdaderos y correctos. Firma de el Reclamante X Fecha Firma de un Padre/Tutor (si el reclamante es menor de 18 años) Queja fue recibida por Fecha Por correo mande esta forma a: Stockton Police Department, Professional Standards Section, 22 East Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA 95202 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 269 I.11 Ventura County Sheriff’s Office Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 270 VENTURA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE CITIZEN COMPLAINT PROCEDURE Law enforcement personnel often face an almost impossible task. They must enforce the law in a fair and impartial manner and still protect the rights of all parties involved. They come in contact with people under the most stressful circumstances and yet must remain patient and courteous. They must exercise good judgment at all times, though they are often called upon to make split- second decisions. They see the worst sides of life but still are expected to give only their best. Being only human, they make mistakes and may appear to be conducting themselves improperly. The Ventura County Sheriff’s Office has established rules of conduct for its employees and guidelines for appropriate corrective action when those rules are breached. In addition to providing citizens with a procedure to present their complaints, the system protects police employees from false charges and unwarranted criticism. The Professional Standards Bureau A function of the Professional Standards Bureau is to protect the integrity of the Office of the Sheriff and its personnel, both sworn and professional staff. Only through citizen’s trust and confidence in their police is effective law enforcement possible. The investigation of certain minor allegations is handled at the division level by an employee’s immediate supervisor. Serious complaints are investigated by the Professional Standards Bureau. How to Register a Complaint While the Sheriff’s Office does not actively solicit complaints against its personnel, it encourages any person who believes he or she has a valid complaint to come forward. Only by knowing about internal problems can the Sheriff or his designee deal with them properly. You may register a complaint in person, by mail, or phone. If you have a complaint, contact the Human Resources Bureau, whose regular office hours are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The Human Resources Bureau is located on the first floor of the Pre-Trial Detention Facility building, Ventura County Government Center, 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009, (805) 654-2375. On weekends, holidays or after hours, you may contact us at (805) 654-9511 or you may also print a form from our website at VenturaSheriff.org. Complaints may be registered with any member of the Sheriff’s Office. It is necessary that as much specific information as possible be provided about the incident, including time and date of occurrence, location, the employee’s name (if you know it), and names of witnesses, if any. Every complaint of misconduct, regardless of its nature is reviewed for an appropriate level of investigation. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 271 Investigation of Complaints The Professional Standards Bureau Commander, acting on behalf of the Sheriff, will assign your complaint to a staff investigator or to the appropriate supervisor in the employee’s division through the chain of command. A comprehensive investigation will be conducted. Upon completion of the investigation of your complaint, it will be reviewed by the Sheriff or his designee, as well as the employee’s supervisor. The disposition of your complaint will be determined in one of five ways: Unfounded The allegation is not supported by the evidence. Exonerated The incident complained of occurred, but the employee involved acted lawfully and properly. Not Sustained The investigation did not disclose enough information to either prove or disprove the allegation. Sustained The allegation is supported by the evidence. Abated A complaint is deemed to be abated due to lack of merit; the complainant withdraws the complaint or refuses to cooperate with the investigation, and/or there is insufficient evidence or alternative sources of information to pursue the matter further. If the allegation is sustained against the employee, the Sheriff or a supervisor acting on the Sheriff’s behalf will take proper corrective measures. These measure may include additional training, verbal or written reprimand or suspension without pay. In severe cases, the Sheriff may demote an employee or terminate the employee from the Department. Employees are notified promptly of any action taken against them. CALIFORNIA LAW PROHIBITS THE SHERIFF FROM REPORTING BACK TO YOU THE SPECIFICS OF THE INVESTIGATION OR THE EXTENT OF ANY ACTION, WHICH MAY RESULT FROM YOUR COMPLAINT. As Sheriff of Ventura County, it is my responsibility to ensure that my office enforces the law fairly and impartially with respect for each person’s dignity. An element of that role is to investigate objectively all Department and citizen complaints as expeditiously as possible. These investigations must be done in order to get to the truth of the matter at hand. -Bill Ayub, Sheriff Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 272 CITIZEN COMPLAINT FORM PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLE Complainant’s Name: Address: City: Zip: Home Phone: Work Phone: Cell Phone: Witnesses or others involved: Name: Phone: Name: Phone: Date/ time of incident or action: Location of incident or action: Was a deputy sheriff involved? Yes No Can you identify the deputy? Yes No Badge number and name, if known: 1. Is this complaint alleging racial and/or identity profiling? Yes / No 2. If yes, what specific type of racial or identity profiling do you allege? (check all boxes that apply) O Race or Ethnicity (including color) O Nationality/National Origin O Gender O Age O Religion O Gender Expression O Sexual Orientation O Mental Disability O Physical Disability Please use the back of this form and explain, in your own words the action or inaction that caused this complaint: (attach additional pages, if necessary) California Penal Code § 148.6 states: You have the right to make a complaint against a police officer for any improper police conduct. California law requires this agency to have a procedure to investigate citizens' complaints. You have a right to a written description of this procedure. This agency may find after investigation that there is not enough evidence to warrant action on your complaint; even if that is the case, you have the right to make the complaint and have it investigated if you believe an officer behaved improperly. Citizen complaints and any reports or findings relating to complaints must be retained by this agency for at least five years. I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE ABOVE STATEMENT: Signature of Complainant Date FILING A FALSE COMPLAINT AGAINST A PEACE OFFICER MAY SUBJECT YOU TO CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY. If you file a false complaint against a peace officer alleging misconduct, criminal conduct, or incompetence, you may be sued for defamation under Civil Code section 47.5. If your false complaint alleges criminal conduct, you may also be prosecuted under Penal Code section 148.5. VCSO STAFF ONLY: Received by: ID # DATE: Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 273 Description of complaint: Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 274 I.12 Berkeley Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 275 Complaint Form Berkeley Police Department Internal Affairs Bureau 2100 Martin Luther King Jr. Way Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 981-5706 Complainant’s name address city zip phone Alternate/work address city zip phone Gender Race DOB e-mail address Incident location date time Division involved (if known) Employee name / badge (if known) Alleged Violation of Departmental Policy in regards to: 1- Use of Force 7- Harassment 4- Detention Procedure (jail) 2- Discourtesy 8- Police Procedures 5- Investigation Procedures/ Police Report 3- Street detention / Search / Seizure 9- Traffic Citation or Police Tow 6- Discrimination Arrest 10- Other NOTE: If alleging discrimination, please circle one or more of the following: race, nationality, gender, age, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, mental disability, or physical disability Victim (if other than complainant) address city zip phone Witness address city zip phone Witness address city zip phone What was complainant doing at time of incident? Does complaint involve an arrest? Person(s) arrested / injured Case number Complaint received by date time in person by phone by mail other Have complainant submit own hand-written account of incident on reverse side >>>>> Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 276 Complainant Statement Please prepare a synopsis of your complaint with as much detail as possible. A sergeant with the Internal Affairs Bureau will contact you to schedule an interview in which a more complete statement will be taken. If your complaint is more than 30 days from the date of incident upon which the complaint is based, please explain in your synopsis the circumstances that caused a delay in filing. Your signature below indicates that the statement you are making is true and accurate to the best of your knowledge. Complainant Date Witness Date Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 277 I.13 Culver City Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 278 Culver City Police Department Personnel Complaint Report File Number: Date & Time of Occurrence Location of Occurrence Date & Time Reported to Police Name of Complaint Res. Address Phone Age Sex Business Name Bus. Address Phone Witness (Name) Res. Address Phone Age Sex Witness (Name) Res. Address Phone Age Sex Name of Officer(s) - (if known) Description of Officers Badge # Uniformed? YES  NO  Name of Officer(s) - (if known) Description of Officers Badge # Uniformed? YES  NO  You have the right to make a complaint against a Police Officer for any improper police conduct. California law requires this agency to have procedures to investigate citizen’s complaints. You have a right to a written description of this procedure. This agency may find after investigation that there is not enough evidence to warrant action on your complaint; even if that is the case, you have the right to make the complaint and have it investigated if you believe an officer behaved improperly. Citizen complaints and any reports or findings relating to complaints must be retained by this agency for at least five years. I have read and understood the above statement. Complainant Signature Date Describe details of occurrence: Use the backside of this form or attach additional notes if necessary Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 279 7/06 mm Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 280 I.14 Davis Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 281 Davis Police Department MAKING AN INQUIRY OR COMPLAINT The information on this form can be provided in languages other than English. If you need this information in another language, need translations services, or need any other assistance because of a disability, please contact the on-duty Watch Commander. The public’s trust, confidence and support are vital to successful police service. The public is entitled to have ready access to supervisors and the police administration that is sworn to serve them, and have them respond to any grievances or complaints regarding any member of the Davis Police Department. This access will help foster public understanding of police procedures and aid in the detection or correction of improper or undesirable practices or behavior by members of the Davis Police Department. Pursuant to section 832.5 of the Penal Code, the Davis Police Department has adopted a policy that provides a fair, orderly and uniformly applied process for receiving, investigating, and resolving complaints of alleged police misconduct. Complaints against members of the Davis Police Department may be filed in a variety of ways, including; • By filling out this form and submitting it either in person or by mail to the Davis Police Department located at 2600 Fifth St. Davis, CA 95618. • By filling out this form and submitting it either in person or by mail to the City Manager’s Office located at City Hall, 23 Russell Blvd Davis, CA 95616. • By speaking directly to a Davis Police Department supervisor either in person or by telephone (530) 747-5400. • By sending an email to the police department at policeweb@cityofdavis.org or the city manager at CMOWeb@cityofdavis.org. • By directly contacting the Independent Police Auditor by phone or email (information can be located at www.davispd.org). Filling out a complaint form is not a requirement for making a complaint. All complaints, from any source, in any language, whether in writing or verbally received, no matter how received by the police department, will be reviewed. Although a person is not required to speak to anyone at the police department prior to making a complaint, if your inquiry or complaint is specifically about a member of the Davis Police Department, we encourage you to speak directly to that employee’s immediate supervisor. If that supervisor is not available, you may ask for the on-duty Watch Commander. Any police supervisor may accept an initial inquiry or a formal complaint directed against personnel, policies or procedures. If your inquiry or complaint appears to be based on a misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of acceptable or desired conduct, policies and procedures, the supervisor may offer an explanation and attempt to resolve the situation without a formal investigation. If you are not satisfied with an explanation of acceptable and desirable conduct, policies or procedures, a formal complaint may be filed and it will be referred to the Office of the Police Chief. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 282 Some types of complaints may be addressed through the Community - Police Alternative Conflict Resolution (ACR) Program process - a voluntary restorative process designed to resolve the complaint through face-to-face conversation with a member of the Davis Police Department. If you are interested in participating in the ACR Pilot Program, please indicate this below. Information regarding the ACR can be found at the front counter of the police department or online at http://cityofdavis.org/city-hall/police-department/alternative-conflict- resolution-acr- pilot-program. If you make a formal complaint, it will be thoroughly investigated by an assigned supervisor. The investigation will usually include a review of all applicable reports, examination of any evidence, review of any video or audio footage and interviews with all parties and witnesses. A simple inquiry might take several days to complete, while a complex investigation might take two or three months or more to investigate and review. The Office of the Police Chief reviews every complaint. If the Police Chief determines that an employee violated department policies or procedures, appropriate corrective action is taken. The Police Chief’s review will also include looking for ways to improve policies, procedures, training, and service. FINDINGS You will receive written notification of the findings of any formal complaint. The possible findings are: a. Unfounded –The investigation clearly established that the allegation is not true. b. Not Sustained –The investigation failed to disclose sufficient evidence to clearly prove or disprove the allegation in the complaint. c. Sustained –The investigation disclosed sufficient evidence to prove the truth of allegation in the complaint by the preponderance of evidence. d. Exonerated –The investigation clearly established that the actions of the personnel that formed the basis of the complaint are not a violation of law or agency policy. e. Frivolous –Means totally and completely without merit or for the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party. f. Alternative Conflict Resolution –The complaint is resolved in accordance with the ACR Program. If the complaint is sustained, meaning there was wrong doing, the Police Chief will determine whether the employee will be disciplined and/or receive additional training. Discipline may include: reprimand, suspension, demotion or termination. State law does not allow the release of the specific action taken against a public safety employee. Although we cannot guarantee you will be satisfied with the results of the investigation, we do guarantee that your complaint will be investigated thoroughly and fairly. Sincerely, Darren Pytel Darren Pytel Police Chief Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 283 YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE A COMPLAINT AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER FOR ANY IMPROPER POLICE CONDUCT. CALIFORNIA LAW REQUIRES THIS AGENCY TO HAVE A PROCEDURE TO INVESTIGATE CIVILIANS’ COMPLAINTS. YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO A WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF THIS PROCEDURE. THIS AGENCY MAY FIND AFTER INVESTIGATION THAT THERE IS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO WARRANT ACTION ON YOUR COMPLAINT; EVEN IF THAT IS THE CASE, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE COMPLAINT AND HAVE IT INVESTIGATED IF YOU BELIEVE AN OFFICER BEHAVED IMPROPERLY. CIVILIAN COMPLAINTS AND ANY REPORTS OR FINDINGS RELATING TO COMPLAINTS MUST BE RETAINED BY THIS AGENCY FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS. Your Name Todays Date Home Address Phone # ( ) Cell # ( ) Email Date/Time of Incident Location of Incident Name(s) of Member(s) of the Davis Police Department Involved (if known) Name(s) of Witness(s) 1. 2. Address Phone ( ) ( ) Additional witness information attached. Circle One Did you speak to a supervisor at the police department regarding the incident? YES NO Would you like to speak to a supervisor prior to making a formal complaint? YES NO Would you be interested in hearing more about or possibly using the Alternative Complaint Resolution process? YES NO If you’ve already spoken to a supervisor, name of supervisor: Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 284 Statement of Please describe the circumstances surrounding your complaint in as much detail as you can remember. Please also include what your specific complaints or allegations of misconduct are. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 285 Signed Additional documents attached DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE-FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY Supervisor’s Comments: Name of Supervisor/Member Receiving Complaint: Copy to Complainant? YES NO Date Employee Forwarded to Office of Police Chief Date Employee Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 286 I.15 Petaluma Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 287 COMMENDATIONS PERSONNEL COMPLAINTS Everyone enjoys receiving recognition All Police Departments of the State of for their efforts. Commendations, California are required by law to have a either verbal or written, are one of the process by which citizens may make a best ways to let someone know that complaint against police personnel. you appreciate their hard work. A The information in this pamphlet will commendation for an employee of the assist anyone who has occasion to Police Department is most often sent make a complaint against any member to the Chief of Police. You may also of the Petaluma Police Department. advise the employee’s supervisor or What is a Civilian’s Complaint? Watch Commander. Your comments can be made in person, by telephone There are two types of complaints. or by using this brochure. The first is an informal complaint. This complaint is normally handled by the A commendation may address any employee’s supervisor for minor event that you deem noteworthy on the transgressions. part of an employee whom you believe should be recognized. This may range The second type of complaint is the from the display of unusual courtesy or formal complaint. This is for more professionalism, to significant life- serious types of transgressions. The saving measures or heroic acts. formal complaint is lodged with the employee’s supervisor or Watch Commendations are formally Commander. documented and shared with the affected employees. Who Can Make a Complaint? A personnel complaint may be made by anyone. However if the complainant is under the age of 18 years, we require an adult accompany the complainant. Petaluma, Ca. 94952 969 Petaluma Blvd. No. Petaluma Police Dept. To: CHIEF OF POLICE From: CITY OF PETALUMA POLICE DEPARTMENT CIVILIAN COMMENDATION AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE POSTAGE U. S. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 288 PETALUMA POLICE DEPARTMENT CITIZENS REPORT FORM Will I Have to Testify if I Make a How Can a Personnel Complaint Complaint? be Made? Please print or type  Complaint  Commendation (Attach summary on additional paper) A complaint may be made by telephone, A complainant does not normally have by mail or in person. The complaint Name: to testify in any formal hearing. During may be made at the Police Department Home Address: the investigation you, along with all or another mutually convenient location. witnesses, will be questioned Home Phone: ( ) Business Phone: ( ) The department is primarily interested in concerning the incident. It is essential learning of your concerns about police Gender:  Male  Female Date of Birth: / / to any investigation to ask all pertinent professionalism or need for Where did this incident occur: improvement in our delivery of services. questions and obtain factual Name of employees involved: information. Once an investigation is When Can a Complaint be concluded, a disposition will be Made? determined. Name, address and telephone number of any persons who may have observed or have direct knowledge of the incident. A complaint may be made at any time. Employees of the City of Petaluma Name: Phone: ( ) After normal business hours, a have the right to appeal any discipline personnel complaint may be made with Address: recommended or imposed. In some any supervisor, the on-duty Watch Name: Phone: ( ) cases, these appeals may be heard by Commander, or by calling (707) 778- 4372. Address: the City of Petaluma Personnel Board, which is comprised of three citizens from the community. You may have to What Happens After I File a REPORTS OF POLICE MISCONDUCT testify at such a hearing. Complaint? You have the right to make a complaint against a police officer for any improper The complaint is received, reviewed and police conduct. California law requires this agency to have a procedure to If you have a complaint and you are assigned to an investigator to look into investigate civilian’s complaints. You have the right to a written description of this unsure how to proceed, a telephone the matter. If the investigator is able to procedure. This agency may find after the investigation that there is not enough call to any on-duty Watch Commander resolve the complaint after examining all evidence to warrant action on your complaint; even if this is the case, you have the will provide you with the options the facts and circumstances, you will be right to make a complaint and have it investigated if you believe the officer behaved available. notified. improperly. Civilian complaints and any reports or findings relating to complaints If the complaint requires further review, must be retained by this agency for at least five years. it will be forwarded to a Police Lieutenant for a formal recommendation, and the Chief of Complainant Signature: Police for a final determination. You will be notified in writing as to the disposition Date: of the complaint. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 289 I.16 Rohnert Park Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 290 PERSONNEL COMPLAINTS COMMENDATIONS C R P ITY OF OHNERT ARK All police departments in the State of California D Everyone enjoys receiving recognition for their EPARTMENT OF are required by law to have a process by which any efforts. Commendations, either verbal or written, person may make a complaint against police are one of the best ways to let someone know that P S UBLIC AFETY personnel. The information in this pamphlet will you appreciate their work. A commendation for assist anyone who has occasion to make a an employee of the Rohnert Park Department of complaint against any member of the Rohnert Public Safety is most often sent to the Director of Park Department of Public Safety. Here are some Public Safety. You may also advise the employee’s of the questions we frequently encounter supervisor or Watch Commander. Your comments regarding our complaint procedures and can be made in person, by telephone or using the processes. form in this brochure. WHAT IS A PERSONNEL A commendation may address any event that you deem noteworthy on the part of an employee COMPLAINT? whom you believe should be recognized. This may range from the display of unusual courtesy or There are two types of personnel complaints. The compassion to significant life-saving measures or first is an informal complaint. This complaint is heroic acts. We are interested in hearing about normally handled by the employee’s supervisor your observations of any commendable act of for minor transgressions and is brought to the behavior. All commendations are formally employee’s attention by the supervisor. documented and the affected employees will be notified. The second type of complaint is a formal complaint. This is for more serious types of COMMENDATION A commendation takes only a few minutes to transgressions. The formal complaint is lodged & write or communicate. It can go a long way to let with the employee’s supervisor, Watch the personnel of the Rohnert Park Department of Commander, Division Commander or Director of Public Safety. COMPLAINT PROCEDURE Public Safety know how you feel about them and their service. WHO CAN MAKE A COMPLAINT? To submit a commendation, use this form or send your letter to: A personnel complaint may be made by anyone. However, if the complainant is under the age of Director of Public Safety 18, we require that the complainant be Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety TIM MATTOS accompanied by a parent or an adult. 500 City Center Drive DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY Rohnert Park, CA 94928 ROHNERT PARK, CA 94928 500 CITY CENTER DRIVE ROHNERT PARK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY HERE STAMP PLACE PLEASE Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 291 DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT (continued) HOW DO I MAKE A COMPLAINT? ROHNERT PARK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY  Commendation Commendation / Complaint Form  Complaint A complaint may be made by telephone, by mail, or in person, at the public safety department, or Your name: another mutually convenient location. The Home address: department is primarily interested in learning of your concerns about conduct or a need for Home phone: Cell phone: improvement in our delivery of services. Sex: Age: Date of birth: Date of incident: Time of incident: WHEN CAN A COMPLAINT BE MADE? Name/badge # of employee(s) involved: PLEASE PROVIDE THE NAMES, ADDRESSES, AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS OF ANY PERSONS WHO A complaint may be made 24 hours a day. After MAY HAVE OBSERVED OR HAVE DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF THIS INCIDENT. normal business hours, a personnel complaint (Continue narrative on additional pages, if needed) may be registered with any supervisor or the on- Name: Phone: duty Watch Commander by calling 584-2600. Address: WILL I HAVE TO TESTIFY IF I MAKE A Name: Phone: COMPLAINT? WHAT HAPPENS AFTER I FILE A COMPLAINT? Address: A complainant does not normally have to testify in any formal hearing. During the investigation REPORTS OF POLICE MISCONDUCT The complaint is received, reviewed and assigned you along with all witnesses, will be interviewed You have the right to make a complaint against a police officer for any improper police conduct. to a supervisor for further investigation. If the concerning the incident. The interviews will be California law requires this agency to have a procedure to investigate complaints. You have a right to supervisor is able to resolve the complaint after tape recorded. It is essential to any investigation a written description of this procedure. This agency may find after investigation that there is not examining all the facts and circumstances, you will to ask all pertinent questions and obtain factual enough evidence to warrant action on your complaint; even if this is the case, you have the right to be notified. information. Once an investigation is concluded, a make the complaint and have it investigated if you believe an officer behaved improperly. Complaints disposition will be determined. and any reports or findings relating to complaints must be retained by this agency for at least five If the complaint requires further review, it will be years. forwarded to a Division Commander for a formal Employees of the City of Rohnert Park have the recommendation and then to the Director of Signature: Date: right to appeal any discipline recommended or Public Safety for a final determination. You will be imposed. This appeal process is in accordance DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT notified in writing concerning the disposition. with Government Code Section 3300, also called The Peace Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act. No complaint shall be investigated until a supervisor contacts the complainant in person or If you have any further questions, call the by telephone to determine if a formal complaint is Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety warranted. Administration at 707-584-2650 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 292 I.17 Santa Rosa Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 293 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 294 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 295 I.18 Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 296 What Happens After I File A Complaint? The complaint is received, reviewed, and assigned for further investigation. You may be contacted by the investigator for an interview, if needed. Once the investigation is completed, you will be notified of the final determination as follows: Sustained: Investigation has shown sufficient evidence to prove the truth of the allegation by the preponderance of evidence. Inconclusive: Investigation failed to show sufficient evidence to clearly prove or disprove the allegation. Exonerated: Investigation clearly established the actions of the personnel that formed the basis of the complaint are within policy and the law. Unfounded: Investigation clearly established that the allegation is not true. Will I Have to Testify if I Make a Complaint? A complainant does not normally have to testify in any formal hearing. During the investigation you, along with witnesses, may be questioned concerning the incident. It is essential to any investigation to ask all pertinent questions and obtain factual information. Once an investigation is concluded, a disposition will be determined. Members of the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office have the right to appeal any discipline recommended or imposed. In some cases these appeals may be heard by the Sonoma County Civil Service Commission. You may be asked to testify at such a hearing. What Happens If I File A False Criminal Complaint? We invite people to bring their concerns regarding law enforcement practices and services to our attention. However, anyone who alleges a crime was committed and reports that to a peace officer, knowing the report to be false, could be charged with a misdemeanor. Santa Rosa, CA 95403 2796 Ventura Avenue Sonoma County Sheriff's Office Sheriff Mark Essick Complaints SONOMA COUNTY Thank You for taking the time to provide your feedback about our employees. Our Office is constantly striving to SHERIFF’S OFFICE provide outstanding customer service to our community. We welcome and appreciate your feedback. All Sheriff's Offices in the State of California are required by law to have a process by which a citizen may make a complaint against Sheriff's members. Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office will not tolerate any intimidation or retaliatory action against any person who files a complaint against a member of this office. How Can A Complaint Be Made? A complaint can be made by telephone, by mail, or in person. The complaint can be made at the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office, another mutually convenient location, or the Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review and Outreach (IOLERO). The Sheriff’s Office is primarily interested in learning of your concerns about law enforcement conduct or a need for improvement in our delivery of services. COMPLAINT PROCEDURE Who Can Make a Complaint? A complaint may be made by anyone. However, if the complainant is under the age of 18, we ask that the complainant be accompanied by a parent or an adult if made in person or the complaint form signed by a parent Mark Essick or adult if submitted in writing. Sheriff-Coroner When Can A Complaint Be Made? A complaint can be made with this office 24 hours a day. After normal business hours, a complaint may be registered with any supervisor or the on-duty Watch STAMP From: Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices Commander, or by calling (707) 565-26502.97 Rev. 8/28/2017 To: Please Indicate Type of Complaint: Sonoma County Sheriff's Office Citizen’s Report Form Discourtesy Conduct Unbecoming a Deputy Complaint Improper Procedure Unnecessary/Excessive Use of Force Neglect of Duty Other (Please explain below) Your Name: Biased Policing (ex: race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, age, disability, etc.) Your Address: Statement: Home Telephone: Business Telephone: (Include a description of the incident. Continue on additional pages as necessary) Sex: Age: Date of Birth: Where did this incident occur? Date of incident: Time of incident: Name of member/s involved: Please provide the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of any persons who may have observed or have direct knowledge of this incident. Name: Address & Telephone #: Name: Address & Telephone #: You have the right to make a complaint against a peace officer for any improper conduct. California law requires this agency to have a procedure to investigate citizens' complaints. You have a right to a written description of this procedure. Should your complaint be sustained, it may result in discipline against the officer. We may find after investigation that there is not enough evidence to warrant action on your complaint; even if that is the case, you have the right to make the complaint and have it investigated if you believe a member of the Sheriff’s Office behaved improperly. Citizen complaints and any reports or findings relating to complaints must be retained by this agency for at least five years. I have read and understand the above statement. Signature: Date: Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 298 I.19 Sonoma State University Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 299   COVID-19 Update at Sonoma State Police Department Sonoma State Police Department remains on campus. Our team patrols twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Currently, the police department remains closed to the public but our staff is ready to help you during business hours. Contact police@sonoma.edu or call (707) 664-4444 to reach our staff. Citizen Commendation or Complaint Form Submitting a Commendation or Complaint Sonoma State Police believes in transparency and fostering a sense of community with faculty, staff, students, and community members in our current policing practices. UPD is guided by federal, state, systemwide, and campus programs and policies. Our online web form allows the community to submit a commendation or complaint directly to the Sonoma State Police Department. Please complete with as many details as possible. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Sonoma State Police leadership (https://police.sonoma.edu/about/department-leadership). Investigation of Complaints After your complaint is filed, a Sonoma State Police Employee, assigned by the Chief of Police, will promptly gather all available information pertinent to each allegation of misconduct in the complaint. The final disposition of the case will be made by the Chief of Police. You will be notified by letter, at the conclusion of the investigation. If a complaint is found to be sustained, the Chief of Police will determine and administer the appropriate corrective action. Citizen Commendation or Complaint Form Your InformatioRnacial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 300 Name (First, Middle, Last) Date of Birth Address (Street/City/State/Zip) Phone Witness Information Witness Information Witness Information Information about the Event Is this a: Commendation Complaint Location of Incident Date Month Day Year Time Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 301 Officer Involved (Name) Badge Number Car Number Policy and Procedure Explained Yes No Description of Event CAPTCHA This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. reCAPTCHA Submit Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 302 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 303 I.20 Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 304 Policy Sonoma County Junior College 1009 District Police Department Sonoma County Junior College District PD Policy Manual Personnel Complaints 1009.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE This policy provides guidelines for the reporting, investigation and disposition of complaints regarding the conduct of members of the Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department. This policy shall not apply to any questioning, counseling, instruction, informal verbal admonishment or other routine or unplanned contact of a member in the normal course of duty, by a supervisor or any other member, nor shall this policy apply to a criminal investigation. Adopted 12-15-16 by Chief Lorenzo Duenas 1009.2 POLICY The Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department takes seriously all complaints regarding the service provided by the Department and the conduct of its members. The Department will accept and address all complaints of misconduct in accordance with this policy and applicable federal, state and local law, municipal and county rules and the requirements of any collective bargaining agreements. It is also the policy of this department to ensure that the community can report misconduct without concern for reprisal or retaliation. 1009.3 PERSONNEL COMPLAINTS Personnel complaints include any allegation of misconduct or improper job performance that, if true, would constitute a violation of department policy or of federal, state or local law, policy or rule. Personnel complaints may be generated internally or by the public. Inquiries about conduct or performance that, if true, would not violate department policy or federal, state or local law, policy or rule may be handled informally by a supervisor and shall not be considered a personnel complaint. Such inquiries generally include clarification regarding policy, procedures or the response to specific incidents by the Department. 1009.3.1 COMPLAINT CLASSIFICATIONS Personnel complaints shall be classified in one of the following categories: Informal - A matter in which the complaining party is satisfied that appropriate action has been taken by a department supervisor of rank greater than the accused employee. Informal complaints need not be documented on a personnel complaint form and the responsible supervisor shall have the discretion to handle the complaint in any manner consistent with this policy. Formal - A matter in which the complaining party requests further investigation or which a department supervisor determines that further action is warranted. Such complaints may be investigated by Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/11/18, All Rights Reserved. Personnel Complaints - 1 Published with permission by Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 305 Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department Sonoma County Junior College District PD Policy Manual Personnel Complaints a department supervisor of rank greater than the accused employee or assigned for investigation as deemed appropriate by the Chief of Police, depending on the seriousness and complexity of the investigation. Incomplete - A matter in which the complaining party either refuses to cooperate or becomes unavailable after diligent follow-up investigation. At the discretion of the assigned supervisor, Lieutenant or the Chief of Police, such matters may be further investigated depending on the seriousness of the complaint and the availability of sufficient information. 1009.3.2 SOURCES OF COMPLAINTS The following applies to the source of complaints: (a) Individuals from the public may make complaints in any form, including in writing, by email, in person or by telephone. (b) Any department member becoming aware of alleged misconduct shall immediately notify a supervisor. (c) Supervisors shall initiate a complaint based upon observed misconduct or receipt from any source alleging misconduct that, if true, could result in disciplinary action. (d) Anonymous and third-party complaints should be accepted and investigated to the extent that sufficient information is provided. (e) Tort claims and lawsuits may generate a personnel complaint. 1009.4 AVAILABILITY AND ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLAINTS 1009.4.1 COMPLAINT FORMS Personnel complaint forms will be maintained in a clearly visible location in the public area of the police facility and be accessible through the department website. Forms may also be available at other District facilities. Personnel complaint forms in languages other than English may also be provided, as determined necessary or practicable. 1009.4.2 ACCEPTANCE All complaints will be courteously accepted by any department member and promptly given to the appropriate supervisor. Although written complaints are preferred, a complaint may also be filed orally, either in person or by telephone. Such complaints will be directed to a supervisor. If a supervisor is not immediately available to take an oral complaint, the receiving member shall obtain contact information sufficient for the supervisor to contact the complainant. The supervisor, upon contact with the complainant, shall complete and submit a complaint form as appropriate. Although not required, complainants should be encouraged to file complaints in person so that proper identification, signatures, photographs or physical evidence may be obtained as necessary. If requested, a complainant shall be provided with a copy of his/her statement at the time it is filed with the Department (Penal Code § 832.7). Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/11/18, All Rights Reserved. Personnel Complaints - 2 Published with permission by Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 306 Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department Sonoma County Junior College District PD Policy Manual Personnel Complaints 1009.5 DOCUMENTATION Supervisors shall ensure that all formal and informal complaints are documented on a complaint form. The supervisor shall ensure that the nature of the complaint is defined as clearly as possible. All complaints and inquiries should also be documented in a log that records and tracks complaints. The log shall include the nature of the complaint and the actions taken to address the complaint. On an annual basis, the Department should audit the log and send an audit report to the Chief of Police or the authorized designee. 1009.6 ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATIONS Allegations of misconduct will be administratively investigated as follows 1009.6.1 SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILITIES In general, the primary responsibility for the investigation of a personnel complaint shall rest with the member's immediate supervisor, unless the supervisor is the complainant, or the supervisor is the ultimate decision-maker regarding disciplinary action or has any personal involvement regarding the alleged misconduct. The Chief of Police or the authorized designee may direct that another supervisor investigate any complaint. A supervisor who becomes aware of alleged misconduct shall take reasonable steps to prevent aggravation of the situation. The responsibilities of supervisors include, but are not limited to: (a) Ensuring that upon receiving or initiating any formal complaint, a complaint form is completed. 1. The original complaint form will be directed to the Watch Commander of the accused member, via the chain of command, who will take appropriate action and/or determine who will have responsibility for the investigation. 2. In circumstances where the integrity of the investigation could be jeopardized by reducing the complaint to writing or where the confidentiality of a complainant is at issue, a supervisor shall orally report the matter to the Chief of Police, who will initiate appropriate action. (b) Responding to all complaints in a courteous and professional manner. (c) Resolving those personnel complaints that can be resolved immediately. 1. Follow-up contact with the complainant should be made within 24 hours of the Department receiving the complaint. 2. If the matter is resolved and no further action is required, the supervisor will note the resolution on a complaint form and forward the form to the Watch Commander. (d) Ensuring that upon receipt of a complaint involving allegations of a potentially serious nature, the Watch Commander and Chief of Police are notified via the chain of command as soon as practicable. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/11/18, All Rights Reserved. Personnel Complaints - 3 Published with permission by Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 307 Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department Sonoma County Junior College District PD Policy Manual Personnel Complaints (e) Promptly contacting the Department of Human Resources and the Watch Commander for direction regarding their roles in addressing a complaint that relates to sexual, racial, ethnic or other forms of prohibited harassment or discrimination. (f) Forwarding unresolved personnel complaints to the Watch Commander, who will determine whether to contact the complainant or assign the complaint for investigation. (g) Informing the complainant of the investigator’s name and the complaint number within three days after assignment. (h) Investigating a complaint as follows: 1. Making reasonable efforts to obtain names, addresses and telephone numbers of witnesses. 2. When appropriate, ensuring immediate medical attention is provided and photographs of alleged injuries and accessible uninjured areas are taken. (i) Ensuring that the procedural rights of the accused member are followed (Government Code § 3303 et seq.). (j) Ensuring interviews of the complainant are generally conducted during reasonable hours. 1009.6.2 ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES Whether conducted by a supervisor or an assigned investigator, the following applies to members covered by the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBR) (Government Code § 3303): (a) Interviews of an accused member shall be conducted during reasonable hours and preferably when the member is on-duty. If the member is off-duty, he/she shall be compensated. (b) Unless waived by the member, interviews of an accused member shall be at the Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department or other reasonable and appropriate place. (c) No more than two interviewers should ask questions of an accused member. (d) Prior to any interview, a member shall be informed of the nature of the investigation, the name, rank and command of the officer in charge of the investigation, the interviewing officers and all other persons to be present during the interview. (e) All interviews shall be for a reasonable period and the member's personal needs should be accommodated. (f) No member should be subjected to offensive or threatening language, nor shall any promises, rewards or other inducements be used to obtain answers. Any member refusing to answer questions directly related to the investigation may be ordered to answer questions administratively and may be subject to discipline for failing to do so. (g) A member should be given an order to answer questions in an administrative investigation that might incriminate the member in a criminal matter only after the member has been given a Lybarger advisement and after the investigator has consulted with the prosecuting agency. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/11/18, All Rights Reserved. Personnel Complaints - 4 Published with permission by Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 308 Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department Sonoma County Junior College District PD Policy Manual Personnel Complaints (h) The interviewer shall record all interviews of members and witnesses. The member may also record the interview. If the member has been previously interviewed, a copy of that recorded interview shall be provided to the member prior to any subsequent interview. (i) All members subjected to interviews that could result in discipline have the right to have an uninvolved representative present during the interview. However, in order to maintain the integrity of each individual’s statement, involved members shall not consult or meet with a representative or attorney collectively or in groups prior to being interviewed. (j) All members shall provide complete and truthful responses to questions posed during interviews. (k) No member may be requested or compelled to submit to a polygraph examination, nor shall any refusal to submit to such examination be mentioned in any investigation (Government Code § 3307). No investigation shall be undertaken against any officer solely because the officer has been placed on a prosecutor’s Brady list or the name of the officer may otherwise be subject to disclosure pursuant to Brady v. Maryland. However, an investigation may be based on the underlying acts or omissions for which the officer has been placed on a Brady list or may otherwise be subject to disclosure pursuant to Brady v. Maryland (Government Code § 3305.5). 1009.6.3 ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION FORMAT Formal investigations of personnel complaints shall be thorough, complete and essentially follow this format: Introduction - Include the identity of the members, the identity of the assigned investigators, the initial date and source of the complaint. Synopsis - Provide a brief summary of the facts giving rise to the investigation. Summary - List the allegations separately, including applicable policy sections, with a brief summary of the evidence relevant to each allegation. A separate recommended finding should be provided for each allegation. Evidence - Each allegation should be set forth with the details of the evidence applicable to each allegation provided, including comprehensive summaries of member and witness statements. Other evidence related to each allegation should also be detailed in this section. Conclusion - A recommendation regarding further action or disposition should be provided. Exhibits - A separate list of exhibits (e.g., recordings, photos, documents) should be attached to the report. 1009.6.4 DISPOSITIONS Each personnel complaint shall be classified with one of the following dispositions: Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/11/18, All Rights Reserved. Personnel Complaints - 5 Published with permission by Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 309 Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department Sonoma County Junior College District PD Policy Manual Personnel Complaints Unfounded - When the investigation discloses that the alleged acts did not occur or did not involve department members. Complaints that are determined to be frivolous will fall within the classification of unfounded. Exonerated - When the investigation discloses that the alleged act occurred but that the act was justified, lawful and/or proper. Not sustained - When the investigation discloses that there is insufficient evidence to sustain the complaint or fully exonerate the member. Sustained - When the investigation discloses sufficient evidence to establish that the act occurred and that it constituted misconduct. If an investigation discloses misconduct or improper job performance that was not alleged in the original complaint, the investigator shall take appropriate action with regard to any additional allegations. 1009.6.5 COMPLETION OF INVESTIGATIONS Every investigator or supervisor assigned to investigate a personnel complaint or other alleged misconduct shall proceed with due diligence in an effort to complete the investigation within one year from the date of discovery by an individual authorized to initiate an investigation (Government Code § 3304). In the event that an investigation cannot be completed within one year of discovery, the assigned investigator or supervisor shall ensure that an extension or delay is warranted within the exceptions set forth in Government Code § 3304(d) or Government Code § 3508.1. The assigned investigator or supervisor shall ensure that within 30 days of the final disposition of the complaint, the complainant is provided written notification of the disposition (Penal Code § 832.7(e)). 1009.7 ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCHES Assigned lockers, storage spaces and other areas, including desks, offices and vehicles, may be searched as part of an administrative investigation upon a reasonable suspicion of misconduct. Such areas may also be searched any time by a supervisor for non-investigative purposes, such as obtaining a needed report, radio or other document or equipment. Lockers and storage spaces may only be administratively searched in the member's presence, with the member’s consent, with a valid search warrant or where the member has been given reasonable notice that the search will take place (Government Code § 3309). 1009.7.1 DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION An employee may be compelled to disclose personal financial information under the following circumstances (Government Code § 3308): (a) Pursuant to a state law or proper legal process (b) Information exists that tends to indicate a conflict of interest with official duties Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/11/18, All Rights Reserved. Personnel Complaints - 6 Published with permission by Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 310 Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department Sonoma County Junior College District PD Policy Manual Personnel Complaints (c) If the employee is assigned to or being considered for a special assignment with a potential for bribes or other improper inducements 1009.8 ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE When a complaint of misconduct is of a serious nature, or when circumstances indicate that allowing the accused to continue to work would adversely affect the mission of the Department, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee may temporarily assign an accused employee to administrative leave. Any employee placed on administrative leave: (a) May be required to relinquish any department badge, identification, assigned weapons and any other department equipment. (b) Shall be required to continue to comply with all policies and lawful orders of a supervisor. (c) May be temporarily reassigned to a different shift, generally a normal business-hours shift, during the investigation. The employee may be required to remain available for contact at all times during such shift, and will report as ordered. 1009.9 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION Where a member is accused of potential criminal conduct, a separate supervisor or investigator shall be assigned to investigate the criminal allegations apart from any administrative investigation. Any separate administrative investigation may parallel a criminal investigation. The Chief of Police shall be notified as soon as practicable when a member is accused of criminal conduct. The Chief of Police may request a criminal investigation by an outside law enforcement agency. A member accused of criminal conduct shall be advised of his/her constitutional rights (Government Code § 3303(h)). The member should not be administratively ordered to provide any information in the criminal investigation. No information or evidence administratively coerced from a member may be provided to anyone involved in conducting the criminal investigation or to any prosecutor. The Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department may release information concerning the arrest or detention of any member, including an officer, that has not led to a conviction. No disciplinary action should be taken until an independent administrative investigation is conducted. 1009.10 POST-ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES Upon completion of a formal investigation, an investigation report should be forwarded to the Chief of Police through the chain of command. Each level of command should review and include their comments in writing before forwarding the report. The Chief of Police may accept or modify any classification or recommendation for disciplinary action. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/11/18, All Rights Reserved. Personnel Complaints - 7 Published with permission by Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 311 Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department Sonoma County Junior College District PD Policy Manual Personnel Complaints 1009.10.1 CHIEF OF POLICE RESPONSIBILITIES Upon receipt of any written recommendation for disciplinary action, the Chief of Police shall review the recommendation and all accompanying materials. The Chief of Police may modify any recommendation and/or may return the file to the investigator for further investigation or action. Once the Chief of Police is satisfied that no further investigation or action is required by staff, the Chief of Police shall determine the amount of discipline, if any, that should be imposed. In the event disciplinary action is proposed, the Chief of Police shall provide the member with a pre- disciplinary procedural due process hearing (Skelly) by providing written notice of the charges, proposed action and reasons for the proposed action. Written notice shall be provided within one year from the date of discovery of the misconduct (Government Code § 3304(d)). The Chief of Police shall also provide the member with: (a) Access to all of the materials considered by the Chief of Police in recommending the proposed discipline. (b) An opportunity to respond orally or in writing to the Chief of Police within five days of receiving the notice. 1. Upon a showing of good cause by the member, the Chief of Police may grant a reasonable extension of time for the member to respond. 2. If the member elects to respond orally, the presentation may be recorded by the Department. Upon request, the member shall be provided with a copy of the recording. Once the member has completed his/her response or if the member has elected to waive any such response, the Chief of Police shall consider all information received in regard to the recommended discipline. The Chief of Police shall render a timely written decision to the member and specify the grounds and reasons for discipline and the effective date of the discipline. Once the Chief of Police has issued a written decision, the discipline shall become effective. 1009.11 PRE-DISCIPLINE EMPLOYEE RESPONSE The pre-discipline process is intended to provide the accused employee with an opportunity to present a written or oral response to the Chief of Police after having had an opportunity to review the supporting materials and prior to imposition of any recommended discipline. The employee shall consider the following: (a) The response is not intended to be an adversarial or formal hearing. (b) Although the employee may be represented by an uninvolved representative or legal counsel, the response is not designed to accommodate the presentation of testimony or witnesses. (c) The employee may suggest that further investigation could be conducted or the employee may offer any additional information or mitigating factors for the Chief of Police to consider. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/11/18, All Rights Reserved. Personnel Complaints - 8 Published with permission by Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 312 Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department Sonoma County Junior College District PD Policy Manual Personnel Complaints (d) In the event that the Chief of Police elects to cause further investigation to be conducted, the employee shall be provided with the results prior to the imposition of any discipline. (e) The employee may thereafter have the opportunity to further respond orally or in writing to the Chief of Police on the limited issues of information raised in any subsequent materials. 1009.12 RESIGNATIONS/RETIREMENTS PRIOR TO DISCIPLINE In the event that a member tenders a written resignation or notice of retirement prior to the imposition of discipline, it shall be noted in the file. The tender of a resignation or retirement by itself shall not serve as grounds for the termination of any pending investigation or discipline. 1009.13 POST-DISCIPLINE APPEAL RIGHTS Non-probationary employees have the right to appeal a suspension without pay, punitive transfer, demotion, reduction in pay or step, or termination from employment. The employee has the right to appeal using the procedures established by any collective bargaining agreement, Memorandum of Understanding and/or personnel rules. In the event of punitive action against an employee covered by the POBR, the appeal process shall be in compliance with Government Code § 3304 and Government Code § 3304.5. During any administrative appeal, evidence that an officer has been placed on a Brady list or is otherwise subject to Brady restrictions may not be introduced unless the underlying allegations of misconduct have been independently established. Thereafter, such Brady evidence shall be limited to determining the appropriateness of the penalty (Government Code § 3305.5). 1009.14 PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEES AND OTHER MEMBERS At-will and probationary employees and those members other than non-probationary employees may be released from employment for non-disciplinary reasons (e.g., failure to meet standards) without adherence to the procedures set forth in this policy or any right to appeal. However, any probationary officer subjected to an investigation into allegations of misconduct shall be entitled to those procedural rights, as applicable, set forth in the Peace Officer Bill of Rights (Government Code § 3303; Government Code § 3304). At-will, probationary employees and those other than non-probationary employees subjected to discipline or termination as a result of allegations of misconduct shall not be deemed to have acquired a property interest in their position, but shall be given the opportunity to appear before the Chief of Police or authorized designee for a non- evidentiary hearing for the sole purpose of attempting to clear their name or liberty interest. There shall be no further opportunity for appeal beyond the liberty interest hearing and the decision of the Chief of Police shall be final. 1009.15 RETENTION OF PERSONNEL INVESTIGATION FILES All personnel complaints shall be maintained in accordance with the established records retention schedule and as described in the Personnel Files Policy. Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/11/18, All Rights Reserved. Personnel Complaints - 9 Published with permission by Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 313 Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department Sonoma County Junior College District PD Policy Manual Personnel Complaints Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2021/11/18, All Rights Reserved. Personnel Complaints - 10 Published with permission by Sonoma County Junior College District Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 314 I.21 Cotati Police Department Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 315 (Detach this form from pamphlet) HOW CAN A PERSONNEL WILL I HAVE TO TESTIFY IF I Cotati Police Department Citizens Report Form COMPLAINT BE MADE? MAKE A COMPLAINT? Please Print or Type Complaint or Commendation Your Name A complaint may be made by A complainant does not normally telephone, by mail, online at Home Address have to testify in any formal hearing. www.ci.cotati.ca.us or in person. Home Telephone Business Telephone During the investigation you, along The complaint may be made at the Sex Age Date of Birth with all witnesses, will be questioned Police Department, or another Where did this incident occur? concerning the incident. It is mutually convenient location. The Date of incident Time of incident essential to any investigation to ask department is primarily interested in Name/ badge number of employee(s) involved all pertinent questions and obtain issues of concern to you or a need Please provide the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of any persons who factual information. Once an for improving our delivery of may have observed or have direct knowledge of this incident. investigation is concluded, a services. Name: disposition will be determined. Address & Telephone # WHEN CAN A COMPLAINT BE Name Employees of the City of Cotati MADE? have the right to appeal any Address & Telephone # discipline recommended or imposed. Name A complaint may be received 24 In some cases, you may be asked to Address & Telephone # hours a day. After normal business testify at such a hearing. FALSE REPORTS OF POLICE MISCONDUCT hours, a personnel complaint may Penal Code Section 148.6 be registered with any supervisor or “YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE A COMPLAINT AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER FOR ANY the on-duty Watch Commander, or IMPROPER POLICE CONDUCT. CALIFORNIA LAW REQUIRES THIS AGENCY TO HAVE A by calling 792-4611. PROCEDURE TO INVESTIGATE CITIZENS’ COMPLAINTS. YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO A WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF THIS PROCEDURE. THIS AGENCY MAY FIND, AFTER INVESTIGATION, THAT WHAT HAPPENS AFTER I FILE THERE IS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO WARRANT ACTION ON YOUR COMPLAINT; EVEN IF A COMPLAINT? THIS IS THE CASE, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE COMPLAINT AND HAVE IT INVESTIGATED IF YOU BELIEVE AN OFFICER BEHAVED IMPROPERLY. CITIZEN COMPLAINTS AND ANY REPORTS OR FINDINGS RELATED TO COMPLAINTS MUST BE RETAINED BY THIS The complaint is received, AGENCY FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS. reviewed and assigned to a supervisor for further investigation. IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO MAKE A COMPLAINT THAT YOU KNOW TO BE FALSE. If the supervisor is able to resolve the complaint after examining all the I have read and understood the above statement. facts and circumstances, you will be notified. Complainant Signature If the complaint requires further review, it will be forwarded to the STATEMENT Chief of Police for a final (Start the narrative on additional pages) determination. You will be notified in If you have any further questions, Include description of incident writing concerning the disposition of call the Cotati Police Department at the complaint. 792-4611. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices )enil dettod gnola tuC( )enil dettod gnola tuC( 316 APPENDIX J – POST QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM EVALUATION FORM (FORM NO. 2-341) Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 317 Commission on State of California – Department of Justice Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) TRAINING EVALUATION – COURSE & 860 Stillwater Road, Suite 100 INSTRUCTOR ASSESSMENT West Sacramento, CA 95605-1630 POST 2-341 (Revised 04/21) PRESENTATION INFORMATION Course title Control number Date to Instructor Evaluator Agency/presenter City Zip Number of students Maximum number of students allowed Course coordinator Email Phone Instructor number of for this course REQUIRED POST DOCUMENTATION Expanded Course Outline Yes No N/A Resumes Safety Briefing Performed Hourly Distribution Safety Policies Reviewed Budget Instructor/Student Ratio Notes: INSTRUCTION AND FACILITATION NEEDS DIMENSION UNACCEPTABLE MEETS STANDARD ABOVE STANDARD N/A IMPROVEMENT Facilitation Skills (as appropriate for the Instructor only lectured. Instructor missed Instructor maintained a Instructor used student lesson): Did not allow opportunities to student-centered backgrounds and Instructor opportunity for student engage students. Did learning environment. experiences in communicated clearly, feedback, not use questioning Used active listening facilitating class used active listening engagement, or techniques to promote skills. Engaged dialogue. Posed skills, engaged participation. student dialogue. students in open- questions back to the students with Relied too ended questions. class when able. thoughtful questions, heavily on lecture. Promoted student Encouraged all promoted student participation in their students to participate engagement. own learning. Used in the learning. lecture as appropriate. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 318 Comments: NEEDS DIMENSION UNACCEPTABLE MEETS STANDARD ABOVE STANDARD N/A IMPROVEMENT Subject Matter Expertise: Instructor did not Instructor lacked Instructor had Instructor had extensive Instructor was up to appear to have knowledge and sufficient knowledge of credentials and date, well versed in the sufficient knowledge in appeared to lack the topic. Was well experience in the course material, was the topic and lacks credibility with versed in the course course subject material. readily able to answer credibility with students. Had difficulty material. Instructor He/she was well questions. students. Had difficulty answering questions. was up to date with versed, could readily answering student current trends. answer all student questions. Offered no questions, served as an evidence that he/she is example of an expert in keeping up with latest the field. trends. Teaching was contradictory to the lesson. Instructor was unfamiliar with the lesson. Comments: Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 319 Time Management: Instructor failed to Instructor had trouble Instructor kept to a Instructor effectively Satisfied the learning keep to a time keeping to a time time schedule that changed or adjusted the objectives at an schedule. Was rushed, schedule. Sometimes enabled him/her to learning environment acceptable pace in the unable to meet the missed student breaks. cover all necessary during the course of time allotted. objectives. Dismissed Ran over the information while instruction to meet class early despite not scheduled ending time maintaining student student needs and covering all material. or was too far under breaks and class learning objectives. the scheduled ending dismissal times. Allowed time for time. Did not meet students to go beyond objectives before the lesson and/or dismissing class. expand. Adjusted time for students to ask questions and answer their questions. Comments: NEEDS DIMENSION UNACCEPTABLE MEETS STANDARD ABOVE STANDARD N/A IMPROVEMENT Professionalism: Attitude, language, Instructor conduct was Instructor did not Instructor was Instructor was dressed conduct, and attire unacceptable for a appear to be prepared prepared for the appropriately given the were appropriate. professional training for training, was training, was dressed training environment, environment. Used dressed appropriately given the did not use profanity. unnecessary profanity inappropriately given training environment, Communicated clearly outside the scope of the environment, used refrained from using using proper grammar. course material, profanity when profanity. Treated all Treated all students inappropriate attire, unnecessary or not students with respect. with respect. Was displayed a poor part of the curriculum. Displayed a positive enthusiastic about attitude toward the attitude. teaching. Maintained a students or the course professional demeanor. material. Treated instruction and students as a priority. Comments: Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 320 Learning Resource Management: Instructor did not use Instructor used a Instructor used a Instruction was entirely The use of technology instructional resources. minimal number of variety of methods and student-centered with a and other instructional Did not promote instructional resources tools to support wide variety of resources (PPT, web- engaging student (e.g., PowerPoint only) student-centered engaging classroom based resources, learning using delivery in delivering course learning (PPT, web- activities using multiple easel pads/handouts resources. Did not material. Missed based resources, resources. Instructor (including virtual), provide reference opportunities to easel pads/handouts provided students with breakout rooms, etc. to material for use during enhance the class with including virtual), useful resources for use enhance curriculum or after the class. engaging resources. breakout rooms, etc. to during and after the delivery. Reference enhance curriculum course with direct material could include delivery as application to skills internet links, appropriate. Provided used on the job. suggested videos, reference/resource experts, or other material. training material. Comments: NEEDS DIMENSION UNACCEPTABLE MEETS STANDARD ABOVE STANDARD N/A IMPROVEMENT Classroom Management: Inflexible and Recognized student Maintained empathy Promoted a student- The instructor was unresponsive to learning needs but with students, centered learning flexible and responsive student learning struggles with flexible identified emergent environment to guide to student learning needs. Unable to delivery. Somewhat learning needs, and learning process while needs. resolve interruptions, resolved interruptions, made purposeful also assuring learning distractions, and/or distractions, and/or course revisions on the outcomes were met. disruptive students in disruptive students in fly. Identified risk Took potentially class. class. management issues disruptive situation(s) and resolved any and turned it into a potential distractions teachable moment immediately to return while maintaining tact the class to an and an effective effective learning learning environment. environment. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 321 Comments: Real World Application: Instruction did not Instructor missed Instructor established Instructor established Presentation included provide relevant opportunities to relevance, provided relevance, provided instruction that information for connect curriculum instruction and instruction and provided knowledge, application in real- with real- world curriculum that had curriculum that had skills, and abilities in world context application. Relied too real- world or tangible real-world or tangible real world application. heavily on lecture with application outside the application outside the limited opportunities classroom. classroom. Instructor for students to apply incorporated effective the material. learning activities that enabled students to experience hands-on application. Comments: NEEDS DIMENSION UNACCEPTABLE MEETS STANDARD ABOVE STANDARD N/A IMPROVEMENT Instructional Methods: Instructor did not Instructor missed Instructor used a Instructor delivered Delivery applied to a address different opportunities to variety of delivery information in ways that variety of learning student learning styles address different methods applicable to involved all learning styles (visual/auditory/ at all. Used delivery student learning style different learning styles styles, fully utilized tactile/kinesthetic), methods that did not needs. Focused too and learning domains RIDEM principles used activities, and allow for student much on one learning as appropriate for the (Relevance, learning domains centered learning. domain when the course. Involvement, Discovery, (cognitive, affective, curriculum or topic Experience, Modeling). psychomotor) as crossed multiple Incorporated learning appropriate. domains. domains as appropriate for the instruction. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 322 Comments: Learner Validation: Student learning was Instructor did not Instructor missed Instructor utilized a Instructor used multiple measured or measure student skills opportunities to form of testing to opportunities for demonstrated. or comprehension or validate learning, or demonstrate students to individually provided answers the testing was knowledge or skills demonstrate their without requiring inappropriate for the (written testing, group knowledge of the students to curriculum (e.g., no discussion feedback, course material. demonstrate skills demonstrations student Q&A, knowledge retention. in psychomotor application skills, etc.). demonstration, etc.). Comments: Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 323 Additional Comments: Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 324 Additional Comments: Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 325 APPENDIX K – RIPA BOARD OCTOBER 22, 2021 LETTER TO POST REGARDING AB 846 REGULATIONS AND POST’S NOVEMBER 16, 2021 LETTER IN RESPONSE Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 326 State of California Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board RIPA BOARD c/o 1515 CLAY STREET, 20TH FLOOR P.O. BOX 70550 OAKLAND, CA 94612-0550 Public: (510) 879-3311 Facsimile: (510) 622-2270 October 22, 2021 California Commission on POST Attention: Rulemaking 860 Stillwater Road, Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95605-1630 Via email to melani.singley@post.ca.gov RE: Comment on proposed amendments to Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) regulations implementing Assembly Bill 846 Dear Commission on POST: We respectfully write on behalf of the State of California’s Racial and Identity Profiling and Advisory Board (RIPA Board) to provide public comment on the Commission’s proposed regulations implementing Assembly Bill (AB) 846 noticed on September 10, 2021. Specifically, we write to provide recommendations regarding the assessment of explicit bias of a peace officer candidate’s social media accounts and revisions to proposed amendments to POST Commission Regulations 1953(g)(1) and 1955(d)(3), discussed fully below. While we recognize that some agencies have already implemented these recommendations, we feel it is important to ensure consistency throughout the profession. 1. Recommendation to Require Investigators and Evaluators to Assess Peace Officer Candidates’ Social Media Accounts For Explicit Bias The Board proposes an amendment to Section 1953, subdivision (g)(1) and Section 1955, subdivision (d)(3) to require background investigators and psychological evaluators to specifically assess candidates for peace officer employment for bias in their public-facing social media accounts. While the proposed Bias Assessment Framework includes “social media postings” as an example of “Aggravating or Facilitative Factors” that may be considered when determining whether an applicant has exhibited biased behavior, the proposed regulation does not specifically require investigators and evaluators to search and evaluate an applicant’s social media profile—including prior postings, affiliations, and conduct reflecting agreement or opposition to others’ postings. We believe that such an investigation and review is necessary to accomplish the purposes of AB 846 as envisioned by the Legislature in its adoption. Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 327 Assembly Bill 846 directed POST to develop regulations and screening material that incorporated procedures for identifying both explicit and implicit bias. (See Penal Code 1031.3, subd. (a).) Advocates of the legislation cited the firing of four San Jose police officers engaged in an “online ring of hate” on Facebook as an example of the type of racism and bigotry that needs to be screened out of policing agencies.1 Social media has been a rich source for finding explicit biases among law enforcement nationwide. As the RIPA Board identified in its 2021 report, the Plain View Project, an advocacy group formed in 2016, found thousands of troubling Facebook posts that included racist or otherwise offensive language, leading several departments nationwide to conduct investigations of their officers.2 Of the Facebook accounts that Plain View researchers could identify as belonging to officers or retired officers, about 1 in 5 of the current officers and 2 in 5 of the retired officers made public posts or comments that included biased language or otherwise undermined confidence or trust in law enforcement by using dehumanizing language or praising violence.3 California agencies, including the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department and the San Francisco Police Department, have had to address biased social media posts by deputies and officers.4 In these investigations, researchers have found that this behavior by law enforcement on social media may be consistent with those officers’ actions towards the public they serve. For instance, the Plain View project found that “[o]f 327 officers in Philadelphia who posted troubling content, more than a third — 138 officers — appeared to have had one or more federal civil rights lawsuits filed against them, [. . . and while the] Facebook posts were not specifically connected to incidents that were the subject of lawsuits . . . in some cases the officers were supporting conduct, like using Tasers to subdue suspects, that could mirror the kind of conduct raised in complaints.”5 But even without direct evidence of officers engaging in conduct against the community that mirrors the biased views espoused in their social media, the mere fact that officers endorse such views elicits deeper concerns of affiliations with white supremacist groups 1 See Assembly Floor Analysis, August 29, 2020, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB846 2 The Plain View Project, About the Project <https://www.plainviewproject.org/about> (as of Dec. 14, 2020), and see Andone, This group found thousands of offensive Facebook comments by police. Here's what you should know, CNN.com (June 20, 2019) < https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/20/us/plain-view- project-what-is/index.html> (as of Dec. 14, 2020) 3 https://www.injusticewatch.org/interactives/cops-troubling-facebook-posts-revealed/ 4 Chabria, When cops abuse social media, the results are explosive: ‘One post can become a movement,’ Los Angeles Times (Oct. 13, 2020) <https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-10-13/cops-social- media-dangerous-combo-era-racialreckoning> [describing a Facebook post by a Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Captain, stating that Andres Guardado, a Salvadoran American killed by a deputy in Gardena, “chose his fate”] (as of Dec. 14, 2020); Fuller, San Francisco Police Chief Releases Officers’ Racist Texts, N.Y. Times (April 29, 2016) < https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/30/us/san-francisco-police- ordersofficers-to-complete-anti-harassment-class.html> (as of Dec. 14, 2020). 5 https://www.injusticewatch.org/interactives/cops-troubling-facebook-posts-revealed/ Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 328 and extremist groups6, as well as concerns that officers are carrying out their duties while driven by bigotry.7 Moreover, given limitations in the available tools for identifying and screening implicit biases that may manifest in disparate treatment of individuals based on racial, religious, or other identities, POST should ensure that agencies are relying upon all available measures of bias— particularly those that have already been observed as strongly correlated to biased policing and community harm. For these reasons, the RIPA Board recommends that the regulations require background investigators and evaluators to specifically assess peace officer candidates’ public-facing social media accounts for evidence of bias. 2. Recommendation to Amend Proposed Section 1953, subdivision (g)(1) Documentation and Reporting: Background Narrative Report/Investigator Requirements Section 1953, subdivision (g)(1) requires “that the background investigator summarize the background investigation results in a narrative report that includes sufficient information for the reviewing authority to extend, as appropriate, a conditional offer of employment. The report shall reference the Background Investigation Dimensions and include any findings of biased behaviors and/or bias-relevant traits and attributes per the Bias Assessment Framework.”8 While the regulation attempts to provide some guidance to the investigator in assessing bias and making determinations for employment suitability, it does not require the investigator to provide clear investigative findings with respect to the targeted constructs: biased behaviors, biased attitudes, and biased relevant traits and attributes. The Board recommends amending Section 1953, subd. (g)(1), Background Narrative Report/Investigator Requirements, to explicitly require the investigator to report findings of the investigation based upon each targeted construct (behavior, attitudes, traits and attributes) of the candidate. Reported findings should clearly explain the investigator’s assessment of the candidate for each construct while incorporating and accounting for sources used, evidence used, 6 2 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Counterterrorism Policy Directive and Policy Guide (April 1, 2015) 89 <https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3423189/CT-Excerpt.pdf> (as of Dec. 14, 2020); Levin, White supremacists and militias have infiltrated police across US, report says, The Guardian (Aug. 27, 2020) < https://www.theguardian.com/usnews/2020/aug/27/white-supremacists-militias-infiltrate-us- police-report> (as of Dec. 14, 2020). See also https://www.npr.org/2021/10/06/1043651361/oath- keepers-california-sheriff-chad-bianco-january-6-us-capitol (discovery that Riverside County Sheriff was a dues-paying member of the racist, extremist group Oath Keepers). 7 ABC7 News, 4 San Jose police officers put on leave amid investigation into alleged racist Facebook posts (June 28, 2020) https://abc7news.com/san-jose-police-department-report-news-sjpd- facebook/6275266/ (as of Dec. 14, 2020). 8 https://post.ca.gov/Portals/0/post_docs/regulationnotices/2021/2021-38_TPRA.pdf, p. 2 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 329 and factors considered, among others. This would provide greater transparency in the assessment process, and greater detail for the psychological evaluator, whose evaluation commences after the conditional offer of employment.9 The evaluator, who determines whether a candidate’s biases might adversely affect their behavior as a peace officer could then refer back to the constructs and investigative source(s) used in determining a finding for bias if there are questions related to the background investigation.10 This process would improve public accountability, ensure the clarity of the findings record for review and department educational purposes, increase effectiveness of the background investigator process, and consequently lead to more transparent and evidence-based public service processes.11 3. Recommendation to Amend Proposed Section 1955, subdivision (d)(3) Psychological Screening Procedures and Evaluation Criteria Requirements Section 1955, subdivison (d)(3) requires that “when evaluating a peace officer candidate for explicit and implicit bias against race or ethnicity, gender, nationality, religion, disability, or sexual orientation that might adversely affect the exercise of the powers of a peace officer, psychological evaluators shall use the Bias Assessment Framework …. [to] assess biased behaviors, biased attitudes and bias-relevant traits and attributes.”12 Additionally, the requirement gives evaluators discretion13 as to which data sources to use for the assessments;14 however, the regulations do not require the evaluator to provide clear findings with respect to each construct. Moreover, given the discretion provided to evaluators to determine which data sources or facts may be relied upon in making their final determination, a review of the currently-required documentation will provide little insight to how the evaluators are making crucial decisions. The Board recommends requiring the evaluator to report detailed findings of the evaluation based upon each targeted construct of the candidate. Such findings would clearly explain the evaluator’s assessment of biased behavior, biased attitudes, and biased traits, including identification of sources, evidence used, and other factors relied upon, and an explanation of how they contributed the evaluator’s analysis and decision. This would significantly improve the transparency of this screening process, and would provide a basis to further develop the screening tools over time. 9https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I92ABA5B682E14626A39750AFF7D0BBCB?originationC ontext=document&transitionType=StatuteNavigator&needToInjectTerms=False&viewType=FullText&c ontextData=%28sc.Default%29&bhcp=1 10Ibid 11 Cordner, Gary, National Institute of Justice, Evidence-Based Policing In 45 Small Bytes, May 2020, p. 6 12 https://post.ca.gov/Portals/0/post_docs/regulationnotices/2021/2021-38_TPRA.pdf 13 The Board is not commenting on the fact that the evaluator has discretion here and believes that providing the evaluator with discretion is reasonable. 14 https://post.ca.gov/Portals/0/post_docs/regulationnotices/2021/Bias_Assessment_Framework.pdf, see footnote no. 2 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 330 In closing, we appreciate the work of the Commission and its role in safeguarding the integrity of the law enforcement profession. We believe that the recommendations above will strengthen the profession through enhanced screening for explicit bias and the more specific findings required by the investigator and evaluator. Sincerely, Steven Raphael, Professor of Public Policy Goldman School of Public Policy at U.C. Berkeley RIPA Board Co-Chair David Swing, Chief of Police City of Pleasanton RIPA Board Co-Chair Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices 331 COMMISSION ON PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING November 16, 2021 Professor Steven Raphael and Chief David Swing, Co-Chairs State of California Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory (RIPA) Board POST c/o Department of Justice 1515 Clay Street, 20th Floor P.O. Box 70550 GAVIN NEWSOM Oakland, CA 94612-0550 GOVERNOR Dear Professor Raphael and Chief Swing: RoBBoNTA ATTORNEY GENERAL The California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) is in receipt of your comment letter, dated October 22, 2021, in response to the Public Notice of Proposed Regulatory Action for Commission Regulations 1953 and 1955 related to AB 846, with your three (3) recommendations. POST is very appreciative of the insight, perspective, and recommendations of the RIPA Board. As with any change in regulation or performance standard, the Commission must apply careful and thoughtful consideration as to the appropriateness of the regulation or standard in consultation with a diverse collection of subject matter experts and contributors, as well as legal considerations, including case law and statute. The Board's recommendations illustrate the complexity of background investigations. With respect to the Social Media Access Recommendation, there is a vast array of case law regarding the constitutional rights of individuals to take under consideration, as well as statute. Regarding the Background Narrative Report Recommendation, POST must ensure that the responsibilities of the Background Investigator and Psychologist are clearly bifurcated, to ensure the Investigator is not placed in a position to make medical assessments, which would be beyond his/her professional scope. And, regarding the Psychological Screening Procedures Recommendation, POST staff will need to consult with psychologists in order to determine if such recommendations comport with medical assessment protocols and reporting procedures within the profession. AB 846 has a mandate for POST to update regulation and associated screening materials by January 1, 2022, and POST would be unable to assemble further work groups and incorporate the regulatory changes associated with the recommendations within that timeline. Accordingly, POST will not incorporate your recommendations into the cUITent regulatory package. 860 Stillwater Road, Suite 100 . West Sacramento, CA 95605-1630 . 916 227-3909 • Fax 916 227-3895 • www.post.ca.gov Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices Professor Raphael and Chief Swing November 16, 2021 Page2 Nevertheless, POST will further evaluate your recommendations in the future and is committed to finding solutions that not only enhance peace officer screening but also adhere to statute and case law, thus protecting the constitutional rights of individuals. In fact, the POST Legislative Liaison is in ongoing discussion with Department of Justice staff assigned to RIPA to regularly evaluate the Board's input and to continually enhance the quality of peace officer performance and service to California communities. SCOTT LOGGINS Assistant Executive Director Standards and Development Division cc: Aisha Martin-Walton, California Department of Justice Allison Elgart, California Department of Justice Nancy Benanati, California Department of Justice Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board Annual Report 2021 Appendices