AGENDA
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
REGULAR MEETING NOTICE
SEPTEMBER 17, 2025
PUBLIC MEETING 4:00 P.M.
MEMBERS
Victor M. Gordo, Mayor
Tyron Hampton, District 1
Justin Jones, District 3
Steve Madison, District 6
STAFF
Nicholas G. Rodriguez, Assistant City Manager
Danielle St. Clair, Assistant City Attorney
Tamer Sabha, Recording Secretary
MISSION STATEMENT
The City of Pasadena is dedicated to delivering exemplary municipal services, responsive to our entire community and consistent
with our history, culture, and unique character.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Assistive Listening Devices are available from the City Clerk’s Office with a 24-hour advance notice.
Please call (626) 744-4124 to request use of a listening device.
Language translation services are available for this meeting by calling (626)744-4124 at least 24 hours in advance.
Habrá servicio de interpretación disponible para éstas juntas llamando al (626)744-4124 por lo menos con 24 horas de anticipación.
Meetings are broadcast live on cable Channel 3 and on the Internet at http://pasadena.granicus.com/mediaplayer.php?camera_id=2&publish_id=9 and https://www.pasadenamedia.org/watch/ (Click on Video Streamlining on the right side of the screen).
Items on the agenda may not be called in order listed. Agendas and supporting documents are available on the Internet at
http://www.cityofpasadena.net/commissions/city-council-public-safety-committee/
Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Public Safety Committee after distribution of the agenda packet will be posted online and listed as: “Supplemental Agenda Material Received after the Posting of the agenda.”
PUBLIC COMMENT AT THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING FOR SEPTEMBER 17, 2025, AT 4:00 P.M. WILL BE ACCEPTED IN-PERSON AND BY VIDEOCONFERENCE/TELECONFERENCE.
Link to City Meeting Policy:
cityofpasadena.net/CityCouncilMeetingPolicy
TO VIEW A LIVE STREAM OF THE MEETING:
http://pasadena.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=9 AND
WWW.PASADENAMEDIA.ORG
In order to facilitate public participation at meetings the City will accept public comment in the following manner:
1. Whether participating in-person or virtually at the meeting, members of the public may provide public comment by submitting a speaker card prior to the start of public comment on that item, at the following webpage:
www.cityofpasadena.net/commissions/public-comment/
If a public comment speaker wishes to speak on more than one agenda item, please indicate which items on the online form (multiple item speakers will be handled according to the process posted on the agenda and as specified in the City meeting policy). Public comments are limited to 3 minutes each, and the Chair and Committee may limit this time if reasonable under the circumstances.
2. In-person Meeting Participation: Complete an online speaker card at the following website: www.cityofpasadena.net/commissions/public-comment/ After submitting a public speaker card, members of the public may attend the meeting in-person by coming to the Pasadena City Council Chamber, Room S249 at City Hall at the date and start-time of the posted meeting.
Virtual Meeting Participation: For virtual participants, you may attend by connecting to the meeting using a computer, other electronic device, or by telephone. Please review the agenda to identify the published start time for the meeting and connect to the meeting just prior to, or at the start of the meeting.
To participate in public comment for an item and to be recognized to speak, it is required that the speaker login to the meeting using the same name or telephone number used on the Speaker Card form. This will allow City staff to locate and promote the speaker into the meeting when it is time for their public comment.
Participants’ phone calls to the Committee meeting will be recorded as part of the Committee meeting. By staying on the line and making public comment during the Committee meeting by phone, you are agreeing to have your phone call recorded.
Following is the connectivity information for virtual participation:
Computer or electronic devices, join the meeting at: cityofpasadena.net/cczoom Telephone only dial-in: 1-669-900-6833, Meeting ID: 161 482 446
3. Speaker Card Help Line: If a public comment speaker needs assistance in completing a speaker card, please call the City Clerk’s Office at: (626) 744-4124.
Help line will open 30 minutes prior to the posted start time of the meeting.
4. Members of the public may submit corres pondence of any length prior to the start of the meeting, at the following email address:
[email protected], [email protected], or
[email protected]
Correspondence will be forwarded to the Committee prior to the start of the meeting, posted online, and made part of the legislative record for the item.
LIVESTREAM WITH CAPTIONING IS AVAILABLE AT WWW.PASADENAMEDIA.ORG, AND ALSO AT WWW.CITYOFPASADENA.NET/COMMISSIONS/AGENDAS,
IF YOU NEED A REASONABLE MODIFICATION OR ACCOMMODATION PURSUANT
TO THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
BECAUSE YOU ARE UNABLE TO PARTICIPATE ELECTRONICALLY AS SET FORTH ABOVE, CONTACT THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AT (626) 744-4124 OR
[email protected].
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
SEPTEMBER 17, 2025
Public Meeting: 4:00 P.M.
Council Chamber, Pasadena City Hall
100 North Garfield Avenue, Room S249
TELECONFERENCE LOCATION
The Georgetown Inn
Business Center
1310 Wisconsin Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20007
The Public Safety Committee may take action within its authority on any item listed on this agenda as it deems appropriate following consideration and discussion of the matter.
PUBLIC MEETING – 4:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA – Public
comment will be limited to a total of 20 minutes at the beginning of the meeting and will continue at the conclusion of the meeting, if necessary.
Please limit comments to 3 minutes each.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
OLD BUSINESS
1. PASADENA ELDERLY AND DEPENDENT ADULT LIAISONS (PEDAL) INTRODUCTION*
NEW BUSINESS
2. MILITARY EQUIPMENT ANNUAL REPORT AND RENEWAL OF EXISTING MILITARY EQUIPMENT*
3. AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE GRANT RELATED
DOCUMENTS FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANT AWARD AND AMEND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2026 OPERATING BUDGET BY RECOGNIZING REVENUE AND
APPROPRIATING $545,000 IN GRANT FUNDS*
2 4. DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT THE 2025 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE AND RELATED CODES*
INFORMATION ONLY
5. RECEIVE ANNUAL REPORTS FOR FISCAL YEAR JULY 2024 THROUGH JUNE 2025 AND WORK PLANS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 FOR:
A. CODE ENFORCEMENT*
B. COMMUNITY POLICE OVERSIGHT COMMISSION*
C. OLD PASADENA PARKING METE R ZONE ADVISORY COMMISSION* D. RECREATION AND PARKS COMMISSION*
E. SOUTH LAKE PARKING PLACE COMMISSION*
F. TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMISSION*
ADJOURN
* Attachments Included
2 A. CODE ENFORCEMENT*
B. COMMUNITY POLICE OVERSIGHT COMMISSION*
C. OLD PASADENA PARKING METE R ZONE ADVISORY COMMISSION* D. RECREATION AND PARKS COMMISSION*
E. SOUTH LAKE PARKING PLACE COMMISSION*
F. TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMISSION*
ADJOURN
* Attachments Included
OLD BUSINESS
1. PASADENA ELDERLY AND DEPENDENT ADULT LIAISONS
(PEDAL) INTRODUCTION*
Public Safety Committee
September 17, 2025
Pasadena Elderly and Dependent Adult Liaisons
Pasadena Elderly and Dependent Adult Liaisons
PEDAL Team
Introduction to PEDAL
Jon Pollard, Code Compliance Manager – Planning & Community Development Dept.
Pasadena Elderly and Dependent Adult Liaisons
Introduction
• The Pasadena Elderly and Dependent Adult Liaisons Team (PEDAL) is a multi-disciplinary group created in August 2021 to improve the quality of life for elder and dependent adults in skilled nursing/long-term care facilities in Pasadena.
• PEDAL is an outgrowth of significant patient-safety events that caused the evacuation of two SNF’s in Pasadena in 2020; the evacuations were handled by the Pasadena Fire Department on an emergency basis even though Pasadena has no
regulatory authority, illustrating the need for better
coordination among agencies, especially in a crisis situation. 2 Pasadena Elderly and Dependent Adult Liaisons
Introduction
• The Team was initiated to:
> Improve the quality of life for all citizens of Pasadena. > Assist in resolving matters important to facility residents, their families and healthcare professionals.
> Take local action where possible to maintain required standards at skilled and long-term care facilities.
> Advocate for improved regulation by state and county agencies and for coordinated crisis response to SNF’s.
> Build stronger relationships with first-responders.
> Coordinate enforcement consequences.
> Collaborate in partnership with educational and technical assistance opportunities.
3 Pasadena Elderly and Dependent Adult Liaisons
Introduction
• The PEDAL Team is a collaboration comprised of professionals from multiple disciplines including:
> Pasadena Public Health Department
> Pasadena Fire Department
> Pasadena Police Department
> Pasadena City Manager’s Office
> Pasadena City Attorney/City Prosecutor’s Office
> Pasadena Planning & Community Development Department
> Wise & Healthy Aging
> Huntington Health
> USC – Keck School of Medicine
4 Pasadena Elderly and Dependent Adult Liaisons
Introduction
• PEDAL serves an important role given that:
> Pasadena has a higher population per-capita residing in long-term care facilities compared to L.A. County overall, with more than 3,000 residents in more than 100 skilled nursing, assisted living and long-term care facilities.
> Several Pasadena located long-term care facilities have demonstrated chronic operational deficiencies that have resulted in life-threatening conditions for residents.
> The City has no licensing or regulatory authority over these facilities and there are myriad consequences on the people who live and work there, our first responders, our public health system, healthcare systems, and the citizens of Pasadena.
5 Pasadena Elderly and Dependent Adult Liaisons
Introduction
• Despite extensive regulation of skilled nursing/long-term care facilities, 2021 reports by the L.A. County Office of the Inspector General found that substandard care is an ongoing and persistent problem. • Challenges are often caused by:
> Staffing and workforce issues.
> Insufficient training.
> Poor infection control practices.
> Opaque financial transactions.
> Insufficient oversight.
> The need for county wide crisis mitigation and response planning to coordinate with partner agencies and stakeholders
6 Pasadena Elderly and Dependent Adult Liaisons
Introduction
• An important part of PEDAL’s mission is to provide community outreach, education, information and training.
• To date PEDAL has presented three separate 4-hour training symposiums largely oriented towards skilled nursing facility administrators, infection preventionists, directors of nursing, and admissions coordinators. • Recent training and education topics included:
> Sepsis prevention and control within the SNF environment > Addressing the burden of the RSV virus and Covid-19 in long-term care facilities > Collaboration with Wise & Healthy Aging – Long Term Care Ombudsman Program > Fire prevention and best practices in skilled nursing facilities. 7 Pasadena Elderly and Dependent Adult Liaisons
Introduction
8 • What is the PEDAL Team working towards?
> Increased accountability and oversight amongst state and county regulatory agencies.
> Expanded collaborative relationships with State and County regulatory and licensing agencies including participation in comprehensive crisis mitigation and response plans for SNF’s in the event of facility wide crises. > Improved and expanded training opportunities for facility operators and their staff. > Systemic and cultural changes in skilled nursing and assisted living facilities. > Increased empowerment of facility residents and their family members to:
Voice their concerns about facility operations and conditions. Advocate for improvements.
Participate in decisions that affect their daily lives and quality of care.
Pasadena Elderly and Dependent Adult Liaisons
PFD Impact
• Community Risk
Reduction
• Making
expectations known
• Safer working
environment
(prevention)
• Improving patient
conditions
9 Pasadena Elderly and Dependent Adult Liaisons
Building Relationships
• Build relationships
• Communicate our
needs so we can
better serve our
community
(patients)
• When to call 911
• End of life training
10 Public Health Department
PEDAL Updates
Public Safety Committee
July 16, 2025
Pasadena Elderly and Dependent Adult Liaisons
Long-Term Care Facilities
• Long-term care facilities are entrusted with the responsibility of providing a safe, supportive environment for residents to live and receive necessary care. • In Pasadena, there are over 1,000 individuals living in 14 skilled nursing homes (includes two LAC facilities with a Pasadena mailing address^) and over 2,300 individuals living in almost 100 assisted living/residential care facilities in Pasadena. Pasadena has 12 skilled nursing facilities (SNFs)^ in its health jurisdiction.
• Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) in the United States, including skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) and assisted living facilities (ALFs), are populated by adults who need residential care for underlying medical conditions.
^ Pasadena Park Healthcare and Wellness Center, and Two Palms Nursing Center are within the Foothill Healthcare District and overseen by LAC Department of Public Health. For more information on addresses and health districts, query: https://appcenter.gis.lacounty.gov/districtlocator/ Pasadena Elderly and Dependent Adult Liaisons
Community Health Improvement Plan
• Since 2018, the health and well-being
of these residents in LTCFs has been a
prioritized health objective in the
Community Health Improvement
Plans.
> Objective 1.4: Improve the wellness and
health outcomes of older adults in long-
term care facilities.
> Objective 1.5: Decrease the proportion of
older adults who experience elder abuse.
For more information, visit: https://www.cityofpasadena.net/public-health/data/#community-health-improvement-plan
Pasadena Elderly and Dependent Adult Liaisons
Example SNF CHIP Measure
Example Measure 1.4.1: Percent of skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) that have a 3-star rating or higher on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) ratings, 2010-2024 For more information, visit: https://www.cityofpasadena.net/public-health/data/#community-health-improvement-plan The U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rate the quality of these facilities. Each facility is rated out of five stars. Eight SNFs received a 3-star rating or higher. Reasons for SNFs not meeting the 3-star rating include high number of health citations, poor quality measures, and high staff turnover/lack of staff.
Pasadena Elderly and Dependent Adult Liaisons
PPHD PEDAL Staffing
• Since 2020, LTCF support has been exclusively funded by ELC Grants. (~3.5 FTE)
• As of March 24, 2025, ELC has been terminated until further notice.
• PPHD is evaluating ability to offer expanded LTCF support.
Pasadena Elderly and Dependent Adult Liaisons
PEDAL Team
Wise and Healthy Aging Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program Rachel Tate, MSW, Vice-President Ombudsman Services
Public Safety Committee
July 16, 2025
Pasadena Elderly and Dependent Adult Liaisons
Pasadena Elderly and Dependent Adult Liaisons
Wise and Healthy Aging Long-Term Care
Ombudsman Program
• The Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program is a Federal and State mandated program to provide advocacy for residents in long-term care facilities
> Administered through the California Department of Aging • An ombudsman serves as an intermediary who addresses any concerns related to quality of life or quality of care
FUNCTIONS OF THE LONG-TERM CARE OMBUDSMAN:
17 > Identify, investigate and work to resolve complaints by residents on their behalf. > Conduct routine unannounced visits.
> Mediate between residents, families, and staff to find solutions. > Witness the signing of AHCDs in skilled nursing facilities.
Pasadena Elderly and Dependent Adult Liaisons
18 • Resident Advocacy
> Consent based, person centered advocacy for long-term care residents. > Provide information and support to residents and their families about long-term care options and resident’s rights.
Wise and Healthy Aging Long-Term Care
Ombudsman Program
• Systemic Advocacy
> Identify systemic issues and advocate for policy changes to improve long-term care quality and resident well-being.
> Work with providers, regulators, and other stakeholders to address concerns and make recommendations for improvement.
> Educate residents, families, and facility staff about resident rights, long-term care options, and quality of care options.
> Provide information to the public about long-term care facilities and services.
Pasadena Elderly and Dependent Adult Liaisons
19 Wise and Healthy Aging Long-Term Care
Ombudsman Program
• Education and Outreach
> Educate residents, families and facility staff about resident rights, long-term care options, and quality of care issues.
> Provide information to the public about long-term care facilities and services. > Provide in-service training to facility staff about residents’ rights, mandated reporting, and other topics.
• Collaboration and Coordination
> Work with other agencies and organizations to ensure residents’ safety and well- being.
• Monitoring and Reporting
> Conduct facility visits to monitor conditions and ensure residents’ rights are being upheld.
> Assist residents by making referrals to regulatory agencies when appropriate.
NEW BUSINESS
2. MILITARY EQUIPMENT ANNUAL REPORT AND RENEWAL OF
EXISTING MILITARY EQUIPMENT*
3. AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE GRANT RELATED
DOCUMENTS FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF
TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANT AWARD AND AMEND THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2026 OPERATING BUDGET BY
RECOGNIZING REVENUE AND APPROPRIATING $545,000 IN
GRANT FUNDS*
4. DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO
ADOPT THE 2025 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE
AND RELATED CODES*
MILITARY EQUIPMENT ANNUAL REPORT AND RENEWAL OF
EXISTING MILITARY EQUIPMENT*
Attachment
A
Introduced by: Councilmember Rivas
ORDINANCE NO. 7395
UNCODIFIED ORDINANCE OF THE C\Tf OF PASADENA ADOPTING A MILITARY
EQUIPMENT POLICY
The People of the City of Pasadena ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. This ordinance, due to its length and corresponding publication will be published by title and summary as permitted by Section 508 of the Charter of the City of Pasadena. The approved summary of this ordinance is as follows:
"Summary
Ordinance no. 7395 approves of Pasadena Police Department Policy 711 (Military Equipment), which sets forth procedures for the funding, acquisition, and use of military equipment by the Pasadena Police Department, pursuant to Government Code Section 7070 et seq.
Ordinance No. 7395 shall take effect upon publication." SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance to be published by title and summary.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days from its publication Signed and approved this 20th day of J, 2022.
/
^tt.
Victor M. Gordo
Mayor of the City of Pasadena
JNR:gc
Rev. 5/19/22
#SA4M2GL40D1M7Bv1
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was adopted by the City Council of the City of Pasadena at its meeting held this 20th day of June _2022, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmember Hampton, Kennedy, Madison, Masuda,
Rivas, Williams, Mayor Gordo
NOES: None
ABSENT: Vice Mayor Wilson
ABSTAIN: None
Date Published: June23, 2022
Approvec^^
Mark J^D^y,
City Clerk
m: to
/
/
Rad / Ja/9tfN.
Qhfef Assistant City Attorney
<
2 Attachment
B
Policy
711
Pasadena Police Department
Policy Manual
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/08/20, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Pasadena Police Department Military Equipment - 1
Military Equipment
711.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
In the performance of their duties of public safety, officers of the Pasadena Police Department often face critical incidents that require the use of specialized equipment to help protect lives or save property. The purpose of this policy is to adhere to the mandates outlined in Assembly Bill 481 (September 2021) and provide members of the public a more transparent view of such specialized equipment utilized by officers of the Pasadena Police Department. This policy provides guidelines for the approval, acquisition, and reporting requirements of items defined as "military equipment" which are used to enhance both public and officer safety (Government Code § 7070; Government Code § 7071; Government Code § 7072).
711.1.1 DEFINITIONS
Definitions related to this policy include (Government Code § 7070):
Governing body
– The elected or appointed body that oversees the Department.
Military equipment – Includes but is not limited to the following:
• Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles. • Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers. • High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), two-and-one-half-ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached. • Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants. • Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units. • Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind. • Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. This does not include a handheld, one-person ram.
• Firearms and ammunition of_.50 caliber or greater, excluding standard-issue shotguns and standard-issue shotgun ammunition.
• Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than_.50 caliber, including firearms and accessories identified as assault weapons in Penal Code § 30510 and Penal Code § 30515, with the exception of standard-issue firearms.
• Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles. • Noise-flash diversionary devices and explosive breaching tools. • Munitions containing tear gas or OC, excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray.
• Area denial electroshock devices, microwave weapons, water cannons, long-range acoustic devices (LRADs), acoustic hailing devices, and sound cannons.
Pasadena Police Department
Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/08/20, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Pasadena Police Department Military Equipment - 2
• Kinetic energy weapons and munitions.
• Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight.
* Standard or non-military equipment utilized by this department may be converted for use as "military equipment" if the exigency of life requires such measures. Those incidences will be properly documented in the annual report.
711.2 POLICY
It is the policy of the Pasadena Police Department that members of this department comply with the provisions of Government Code § 7071 with respect to the approval, acquisition and reporting requirements of any qualifying, militaristic equipment. In addition, the use of any listed equipment shall be used in accordance with Federal or State law, this department's policy and with the approval of the Chief of Police or their designee.
711.3 MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE CONSIDERATIONS
The primary purpose of the military equipment is for de-escalation and to preserve life.
Military equipment shall only be used by a Department employee only after applicable training, including any course required by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, has been completed unless exigent circumstances arise. De-escalation techniques should be considered in accordance with PPD Policy 300.3.5 when appropriate. 711.4 MILITARY EQUIPMENT COORDINATOR
The Chief of Police should designate a member of the Police Department to act as the Military Equipment Coordinator. The responsibilities of the military equipment coordinator include but are not limited to:
(a) Acting as liaison to the governing body for matters related to the requirements of this policy.
(b) Identifying department equipment that qualifies as military equipment in the current possession of the Department, or the equipment the Department intends to acquire that requires approval by the governing body.
(c) Conducting an inventory of all military equipment at least annually. (d) Collaborating with any allied agency that may use military equipment within the jurisdiction of Pasadena Police Department (Government Code § 7071). (e) Preparing for, scheduling, and coordinating the annual community engagement meeting to include:
1. Publicizing the details of the meeting.
2. Preparing for public questions regarding the department's funding, acquisition, and use of equipment.
Pasadena Police Department
Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/08/20, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Pasadena Police Department Military Equipment - 3
(f) Preparing the annual military equipment report for submission to the Chief of Police and ensuring that the report is made available on the department website (Government Code § 7072).
(g) Establishing the procedure for a person to register a complaint or concern, or how that person may submit a question about the use of a type of military equipment, and how the Department will respond in a timely manner.
711.5 MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
For a current list of authorized Military Equipment, refer to the Pasadena Police Department's Annual Military Equipment Report. The most recent and past reports can be found by visiting the following link:
https://www.cityofpasadena.net/police/news/ab-481-military-equipment-policy/ 711.6 APPROVAL
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall obtain approval from the governing body by way of an ordinance adopting the military equipment policy. As part of the approval process, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall ensure the proposed military equipment policy is submitted to the governing body and is available on the department website at least 30 days prior to any public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue (Government Code § 7071). The military equipment policy must be approved by the governing body prior to engaging in any of the following (Government Code § 7071):
(a) Requesting military equipment made available pursuant to 10 USC § 2576a. (b) Seeking funds for military equipment, including but not limited to applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers.
(c) Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing or leasing.
(d) Collaborating with another law enforcement agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the jurisdiction of this department. (e) Using any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by the governing body unless exigent circumstances require such measures.
(f) Soliciting or responding to a proposal for, or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of military equipment.
(g) Acquiring military equipment through any means not provided above.
Pasadena Police Department
Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/08/20, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Pasadena Police Department Military Equipment - 4
When feasible, prior to engaging in any of the above activities, the Department shall solicit comment from the Community Police Oversight Commission and/or the City Council Public Safety Committee, in addition to obtaining City Council approval pursuant to Government Code Section 7071.
Approved equipment or its equivalent may be purchased for replacement or replenishment throughout the calendar year. Such purchases will be detailed in the annual report.
The Police Department's Fiscal Services Administrator will be provided a military equipment list to confirm proper purchasing procedures of military equipment are followed and tracked.
The acquisition of all new and replacement equipment must follow applicable public contracting requirements, including, but not limited to, Article X of the Charter (Contracts, Purchases and Claims) and Pasadena Municipal Code, Chapter 4.08 (Competitive Bidding and Purchasing). 711.7 COORDINATION WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Military equipment used by any member of this Department shall be approved for use and in accordance with this Department policy. Military equipment used by other jurisdictions that are providing mutual aid to this Department or operating in conjunction in a law enforcement capacity with this Department, shall comply with their respective military equipment use policies in rendering mutual aid.
711.8 ANNUAL REPORT
Upon approval of a military equipment policy, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee should submit a military equipment report to the governing body for each type of military equipment approved within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use, including the information required by Government Code § 7072.
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee should also make each annual military equipment report publicly available on the department website for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The report shall include all information required by Government Code § 7072. 711.9 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Within 30 days of submitting the publicly released annual military equipment report, the Pasadena Police Department shall hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the general public may discuss and ask questions regarding the annual military equipment report and Pasadena Police Department's funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment. Where feasible, this presentation shall be made at a meeting of the Community Police Oversight Commission and/or the City Council Public Safety Committee. 711.10 COMPLAINTS OR CONCERNS
The Military Equipment Coordinator shall conduct an annual audit of the Department's military equipment. The Chief of Police or their designee will be notified of any policy violations and, if Pasadena Police Department
Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2025/08/20, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Pasadena Police Department Military Equipment - 5
needed, the violation(s) shall be referred to the Professional Standards Section. All instances of non-compliance shall be included as part of the annual military equipment report.
Proceed to the following link for formal complaints or concerns regarding the use of military equipment:
https://www.cityofpasadena.net/police/news/ab-481-military-equipment-policy/
Attachment
C
1 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
Pasadena Police Department
Annual Military Equipment Report
June 1, 2024 – June 30, 2025
2 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary
2. Definition of Military Equipment
3. Military Equipment Reporting Requirements
4. Summary of Authorized Military Equipment
4.1. Unmanned Aircraft Systems
4.2. Unmanned Ground Vehicles
4.3. Armored Personnel Carriers
4.4. Mobile Command and Control Vehicles
4.5. Breaching Shotguns / Lock defeating rounds
4.6. Specialized Firearms and Ammunition (.50 Caliber and Above)
4.7. Firearms or Firearm Accessories Designed to Launch Explosive Projectiles
4.8. Noise Flash Diversionary Devices
4.9. Chemical Agents and Chemical Agent Delivery Devices
4.10. Pepper Ball Launchers and Pepper Ball Munitions
4.11. Kinetic Energy 40mm Weapons and Munitions
4.12. Helicopters
5. 2024–2025 Equipment Use Summary
6. Summary of Complaints Regarding Military Equipment
7. Summary of Military Equipment Violations and Audit s
8. Fiscal Impact
9. Projected Acquisitions
10. Conclusion
3 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
Executive Summary
On June 20, 2022, the Pasadena City Council approved the Pasadena Police Department’s Military Equipment Use Policy, as required by Assembly Bill 481 (AB 481). This legislation mandates that California law enforcement agencies obtain approval from their governing body prior to acquiring, deploying, or using certain types of equipment defined as “military equipment” under Government Code § 7070 et seq.
While the term “military equipment” is used in the statute, it is important to note that the Pasadena Police Department does not possess equipment designed for or used by the military in the conventional sense. The items identified in this policy are specifically developed for use in law enforcement and public safety contexts. The equipment detailed in this report is commonly used nationwide by law enforcement agencies as best practice and industry standard. These tools, which include unmanned aerial/ground systems, armored rescue vehicles, and certain less-lethal munitions, are essential for protecting lives, managing critical incidents, and preserving public safety. Their classification as “military equipment” is a function of the statutory language, not their origin or intended purpose. All authorized “military equipment” shall be used in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, and in accordance with Pasadena Police Department policy.
In accordance with AB 481, this 2024–2025 Annual Military Equipment Report outlines each category of approved equipment and provides information on its use, funding, maintenance, and operational outcomes during the reporting period from June 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025. The 2023-2024 Annual Military Equipment Report covered June 1, 2023, through May 30, 2024, which overlapped the City’s fiscal calendar. To align future military equipment reports with the City's fiscal year and ensure all budgetary expenditures fall within the reporting period, this report includes an additional month. Future annual reports will cover the period of July 1 through June 30.
This report reflects the Pasadena Police Department’s continued commitment to transparency, accountability, and responsible governance. It aligns with our mission to protect life and property, maintain order, and ensure the constitutional rights of all people through ethical and professional service. The “military equipment” detailed in this report is essential to that mission, supporting the safety of our officers and community alike. Rooted in the values of The Pasadena Way, this report underscores our dedication to innovation, integrity, and excellence, and reaffirms our responsibility to serve with fairness, professionalism, and respect for all. 4 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
Definition of Military Equipment
This section defines key terms from Assembly Bill 481, as codified in California Government Code § 7070, establishing a standard framework for identifying equipment covered by the Military Equipment Use Policy and alignment with the Pasadena City Council’s direction. The terminology below describes the categories of equipment requiring reporting. The Pasadena Police Department reports solely on authorized military equipment currently in its possession. At this time, the Department possesses authorized equipment within 9 of the 16 categories outlined below. (1) Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles. (2) Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers. However, police versions of standard consumer vehicles are specifically excluded from this subdivision. (3) High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), commonly referred to as Humvees, two and one-half-ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached. However, unarmored all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and motorized dirt bikes are specifically excluded from this subdivision.
(4) Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants and utilize a tracked system instead of wheels for forward motion.
(5) Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units.
(6) Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind. (7) Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. However, items designed to remove a lock, such as bolt cutters, or a handheld ram designed to be operated by one person, are specifically excluded from this subdivision. (8) Firearms of .50 caliber or greater. However, standard issue shotguns are specifically excluded from this subdivision.
(9) Ammunition of .50 caliber or greater. However, standard issue shotgun ammunition is specifically excluded from this subdivision.
(10) Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber, including assault weapons as defined in Sections 30510 and 30515 of the Penal Code, with the exception of standard issue service weapons and ammunition of less than .50 caliber that are issued to officers, agents, or employees of a law enforcement agency or a state agency.
(11) Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles. (12) “Flashbang” grenades and explosive breaching tools, “tear gas,” and “pepper balls,” excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray.
(13) Taser Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and the Long-Range Acoustic Device (LRAD). (14) The following projectile launch platforms and their associated munitions: 40mm projectile launchers, “bean bag,” rubber bullet, and specialty impact munition (SIM) weapons. (15) Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight.
(16) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) through (15), “military equipment” does not include general equipment not designated as prohibited or controlled by the federal Defense Logistics Agency.
5 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
Military Equipment Reporting Requirements
All actions, including procurement and deployment, are authorized by the Council and support lawful, ethical, and community-oriented policing.
All military equipment kept and maintained by the Pasadena Police Department shall be reported in accordance with the requirements set forth by state law, as outlined in Assembly Bill 481 and PPD Policy 711. The following elements are included in the Military Equipment Use Report submitted to the governing body:
1. A description of the equipment
2. The capabilities of the equipment.
3. The purpose and authorized uses of the equipment.
4. The expected lifespan of the equipment.
5. The fiscal impact of the equipment when initially procured and any on-going maintenance costs.
6. The quantity of the equipment whether maintained or sought.
7. The legal and procedural rules that govern each authorized use.
8. The training that must be completed by officers before use is authorized.
6 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
Summary of Authorized Military Equipment
The Pasadena Police Department’s military equipment inventory is dynamic and may change based on operational use, training needs, maintenance, wear, or scheduled replacement. In keeping with our commitment to transparency and compliance with state law, the Department provides accurate and timely information about its military equipment at the time of each report’s publication.
This report includes descriptions of the various equipment types, along with reference images sourced from publicly available websites authorized for use. These images are for reference purposes only and may not precisely depict the current appearance of consumable equipment products. Due to ongoing equipment replenishment, product updates, and manufacturer changes, variations in appearance may occur. While specific models may be updated to maintain adequate inventory levels, the function, authorized use, and legal requirements of the equipment remain consistent. These images are intended solely for informational purposes and do not imply endorsement of any product or vendor by the Pasadena Police Department.
The Pasadena Police Department is not currently authorized, nor does it possess equipment in the following categories:
(3) High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), commonly referred to as Humvees, two and one-half-ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached. However, unarmored all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and motorized dirt bikes are specifically excluded from this subdivision.
(4) Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants and utilize a tracked system instead of wheels for forward motion.
(6) Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind. (10) Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber, including assault weapons as defined in Sections 30510 and 30515 of the Penal Code, with the exception of standard issue service weapons and ammunition of less than .50 caliber that are issued to officers, agents, or employees of a law enforcement agency or a state agency.
(11) Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles. (13) Taser Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and the Long-Range Acoustic Device (LRAD). (15) Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight.
7 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
Category 1 - Unmanned, remotely piloted ground vehicles RoboteX Avatar Tactical Robot with extended manipulator arm Description: Robots are used to de-escalate incidents, collect intelligence, and reduce risks to the public, the subject involved, or the officers. The robot’s cameras can help determine if a subject is armed and if there are other subjects inside that need assistance. Two-way speakers can be used to de-escalate and determine resistance levels. An arm attachment can lift objects or open doors and is capable of ascending and descending stairs. Robots do not carry nor deploy any weaponry.
Purpose: The robot is primarily used to remotely gather visual and audio intelligence, deliver crisis negotiation tools, manipulate doors or packages, and assist in securing structures. It is commonly deployed during high-risk warrant services, incidents involving barricaded subjects, or hostage situations requiring tactical negotiation and intervention.
Authorized Use: Deployment of the robot must be authorized by the Incident Commander or SWAT Supervisor. Only SWAT personnel who have successfully completed all required training are permitted to operate the equipment. This equipment shall only be used in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, and in accordance with Pasadena Police Department Policy 408 (Special Weapons and Tactics) as well as any other applicable department policies.
Required Training: Assigned operators must complete initial manufacturer-provided training and participate in ongoing monthly SWAT training. Training includes equipment operation as well as legal and policy considerations related to deployment.
Quantity 1 unit
Purchase
Cost $53,624
Expected
Lifespan 10-15 years
Fiscal Impact
Maintenance is performed as needed.
Associated costs vary depending on
use and service requirements.
Estimated annual cost $0-$500.
8 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
Category 1 - Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial vehicles Hero Loki MK2 Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS)
Description: The Loki MK2 is an indoor drone system for gathering video and audio tactical intelligence during an incident. When two drones are deployed, they allow the operator to view several angles of advantage for intelligence gathering. The pilot can fly one drone in and perch it on the known threat or area of concern and receive a live video and audio feed. The second drone can then search the immediate area with live feed capabilities that can allow officers to know immediate dangers and identify critical aid and care needs. The Loki MK2 features a highly sensitive Day-Night + IR sensor camera giving it the ability to fly and see in complete darkness.
Purpose: These UAS platforms are deployed whenever an aerial perspective can provide essential intelligence to officers or incident commanders without putting personnel at risk. Typical scenarios include SWAT operations, tactical or other public safety and life-preservation missions, high-risk warrant services, incidents involving barricaded subjects, hostage rescue and negotiation.
Authorized Use: Use of the Loki MK2 UAS is authorized by the Incident Commander or SWAT Supervisor.
Only operators who have completed all required training and hold FAA Part 107 certification are permitted to operate these drones during approved missions. Additional operators may participate if directly supervised by a certified operator. This equipment shall only be used in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, and in accordance with Pasadena Police Department Policy 408 (Special Weapons and Tactics) as well as any other applicable department policies.
Required Training: Primary operators are required to be FAA Part 107 certified, which entails completing an eight-hour course. Monthly SWAT training is also required for relevant officers to ensure ongoing proficiency and familiarity with all laws and departmental policies governing the deployment of unmanned aerial systems.
Quantity 2 units (each unit consists of two drones = 4 drones) Purchase Cost $21,649
Expected
Lifespan 5-10 years
Fiscal Impact
Maintenance is performed as needed. Associated
costs vary based on service frequency and
requirements.
Estimated annual cost $0-$500.
9 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
Category 2 – Armored Rescue Vehicles (ARV)
Lenco BearCat
Description: The Lenco BearCat Armored Rescue Vehicle (ARV) is designed to provide ballistic protection during critical incidents, capable of withstanding multiple bullets strikes from small arms fire as well as low-level explosions. The ARV is equipped with emergency lights, sirens, and a public address system. It is a regional mutual-aid asset and has been requested and deployed to support allied agencies including San Marino, Santa Monica, Glendale, Burbank, Arcadia, South Pasadena, Azusa, and West Covina. The ARV has responded to a range of incidents such as barricaded suspects, warrant services, evacuations, officer rescue and active shooter events. Additionally, the BearCat is frequently displayed at community events to promote public understanding of its purpose and function. It is important to note that this vehicle is not a platform for any fixed weaponry.
Purpose: The BearCat ARV is deployed during critical incidents to enhance officer and community safety, improve scene containment and stabilization, and assist in the resolution of critical situations. Common uses include citizen and officer rescues, evacuations, and the tactical deployment of officers and rescue personnel.
Authorized Use: Any field supervisor or their designee may authorize the deployment of the ARV. It is generally deployed at the request of a supervisor, watch commander, or SWAT commander, based on the specific needs of an incident. The ARV is to be used only by officers who have completed the required training and must always be operated in accordance with Department policy. The driver must possess a valid California driver’s license. This equipment shall only be used in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, and in accordance with Pasadena Police Department Policy 408 (Special Weapons and Tactics), Policy 706 (Vehicle Use), Policy 414 (Hostage and Barricade Incidents) as well as any other applicable department policies.
Required Training: Pasadena officers assigned to the ARV receive initial training and equipment familiarization from a manufacturer’s representative. Ongoing annual training is required for all applicable officers, with instruction focused on the legal and policy requirements for deployment as well as safe operation. The ARV controls are like a standard SUV.
Quantity
1 unit
Purchase Cost $280,749
Expected Lifespan 20+ years
Fiscal Impact
Maintenance is performed as needed.
Associated costs vary depending on service
requirements and use.
Estimated annual cost $0-$10,000.
10 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
Category 5 – Command and Control Vehicles
2000 Freightliner Mobile Command Post (MCP)
Description: The Pasadena Police Department operates a 2000 Freightliner Mobile Command Post (MCP), which serves as a remote base of operations and provides shelter for prolonged events anywhere in the community. The MCP is a recreational motorhome, painted blue and white with police graphics, and is equipped with a light bar, siren, and a surveillance telescoping camera system. The interior includes a large computer monitor/TV to assist with viewing photos, diagrams, and managing crime scenes.
Purpose: The MCP is utilized for critical incident callouts, community engagement, and outreach activities. As of 2025, the vehicle is being refurbished and repurposed to serve as a support vehicle rather than a dedicated command post, due to its age and extended service life. Command and control equipment has been removed from the vehicle.
Authorized Use: Any field supervisor or their designee may authorize the use of the Mobile Command Post. Only officers and staff who have completed the required training are permitted to operate or deploy the MCP. Drivers must possess a valid Class C California driver's license. This equipment shall only be used in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, and in accordance with Pasadena Police Department Policy 706 (Vehicle Use) as well as any other applicable department policies.
All operations must comply with all laws and Pasadena Police Department policies, including Policy 706 – Vehicle Use.
Required Training: All authorized operators must complete an initial 14-hour training program on MCP operation and safety, followed by an annual recertification course lasting 7 hours.
Quantity 1 unit
Purchase Cost $366,000
Expected
Lifespan
The MCP’s original service life has passed, as the vehicle is now 25 years old; it is planned to be refurbished and repurposed as a support vehicle.
Fiscal Impact Maintenance is performed as needed, with costs varying based on repairs and refurbishment. Estimated annual cost $0-$5,000.
11 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
2022 Freightliner MT-55 Forward Control Chassis Mobile Command Center (MCC) Description: The Freightliner MT-55 Forward Control Chassis Mobile Command Center (MCC) serves as a remote base of operations and dispatch center for the Pasadena Police Department. Designed to support prolonged events or natural disasters anywhere in the community, the MCC features police markings, emergency lights and sirens, satellite, and advanced communications technologies. Its interior is equipped with technology for mobile operations and support functions, including incident command, radio dispatch, salvage and recovery, and multi-agency support for mutual aid deployments.
Purpose: The MCC provides operational support for multi-disciplinary deployments, critical incidents, large-scale events, natural disasters, and community engagement or outreach programs. It ensures continuity of operations when Police Headquarters is offline or inoperable. When not required for emergencies, the MCC supports major incidents such as fatal collisions, extended investigations, missing person searches, homicides, and situations involving barricaded suspects, hostage rescues, or negotiations.
Authorized Use: Any field supervisor or their designee may authorize use of the MCC. Only Pasadena Police Department officers and staff who have been properly trained in the safe handling and deployment of the vehicle are permitted to operate it. The driver must possess a valid California Class C or higher driver’s license. This equipment shall only be used in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, and in accordance with Pasadena Police Policy 706 (Vehicle Use) as well as any other applicable department policies.
Required Training: Drivers and operators must complete an initial 14-hour training program focused on the safe handling and deployment of the MCC, which includes operation on a closed course, city streets, and freeways. In addition, all authorized operators are required to successfully complete an annual recertification course of 7 hours.
Quantity 1 unit
Purchase Cost $1,692,525
Expected Lifespan 11+ years
Fiscal Impact
Maintenance is performed as needed. Associated costs
vary depending on service requirements and frequency
of use.
Estimated annual cost $0-$11,000.
12 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
Category 6 – Lock Defeating Rounds and Breaching Shotgun TKO 12 GA Lock Defeating Rounds and Royal Arms Breaching 12 GA Shotgun Description: Defense Technology Breaching TKO lock-defeating rounds are specialty shotgun shells designed to facilitate rapid entry into a room or structure when emergent law enforcement needs exist, such as hostage rescue, active shooter response, or high-risk warrant service. These rounds are engineered to damage only the locking mechanism and minimize the risk of injury to anyone on the other side of the door. Each round contains compressed copper powder and is fired through a designated breaching shotgun barrel. The copper powder is intended to strike and destroy the lock throw inside the door, allowing entry, and then dissipate to reduce the risk of injury to occupants or officers. The rounds are fired from a designated Royal Arms breaching shotgun. The shotgun itself is standard equipment with a specialized muzzle device to ensure appropriate stand-off and contact when used to defeat a locking mechanism.
Purpose: Lock-defeating rounds are intended to safely enter structures while minimizing the risk of injury during critical incidents. They are specifically designed to breach heavy locks, deadbolts, and hinges mounted inside solid oak or steel doors.
Authorized Use: Use of lock-defeating rounds must be authorized by the Incident Commander or SWAT Commander. Only officers who have completed the required training and been trained by an approved firearms instructor are permitted to deploy these rounds. This equipment shall only be used in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, and in accordance with Pasadena Police Department Policy 408 (Special Weapons and Tactics) and Policy 312 (Firearms) as well as any other applicable department policies.
Required Training: All authorized users must complete an initial 8-hour breaching course and participate in annual refresher training. Training includes instruction on policy and legal requirements related to the use of lock-defeating rounds.
Description Royal arms Breaching Shotgun
TKO Lock Defeating Rounds
Quantity 3 Shotguns
30 rounds
Purchase Cost Shotguns $1200
TKO Rounds $300
Expected Lifespan Until expended
Fiscal Impact
Maintenance as needed; costs vary based on use, with
annual expenditure determined by operational and
training needs. Estimated annual costs $0-$2,000.
13 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
Category 8 – .50 Caliber Precision Rifle
McMillan TAC-50C
Description: The McMillan TAC-50C is a .50 caliber bolt-action precision rifle designed for long-range accuracy and specialized applications against large or armored targets. This rifle features a heavy, free- floating barrel and a folding Cadex Dual Strike chassis system, utilizing 5-round detachable box magazines. It is chambered for the Hornady .50 BMG round, which can disable the engine block of a large truck, effectively rendering it immobile in the event a vehicle is used as a weapon during major events.
Purpose: The primary purpose of the .50 caliber precision rifle is to prevent, deter, or stop mass casualty incidents involving the use of armored or large vehicles, especially at large venue events. Pasadena’s status as a host city for national and international events with high-capacity venues makes it a potential target for terrorist attacks, particularly vehicle-based attacks which can cause significant casualties. The Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) – Sniper Unit has trained extensively with military-qualified snipers to ensure expert knowledge, skills, and maintenance for the operation of this rifle.
Authorized Use: Deployment of the .50 caliber precision rifle requires the approval of the Police Chief or their designee. Only members of the SWAT – Sniper Unit or other approved and SWAT-certified officers are authorized to operate this rifle, and only after they have sighted in and recently qualified with the equipment. This equipment shall only be used in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, and in accordance with Pasadena Police Department Policy 408 (Special Weapons and Tactics) and Policy 312 (Firearms) as well as any other applicable department policies.
Required Training: Operators must complete a sniper certification course and participate in at least two hours of annual training with this equipment. Only certified snipers who have been specifically authorized are permitted to operate this equipment.
Quantity 1 unit
Purchase Cost $8,000
Expected Lifespan Until unrepairable
Fiscal Impact Maintenance as needed. Estimated annual cost $0.
14 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
Category 9 – .50 Caliber Ammunition
Hornady Match Ammunition .50 BMG 750 Grain A-Max
Description: Hornady Match Ammunition .50 BMG 750 Grain A-Max is a 750-grain boat tail round with a muzzle velocity of 2,820 feet per second, specifically designed for use with the department’s .50 caliber precision rifle. The A-Max provides substantial stopping power and is intended to prevent or halt mass casualty incidents involving armored or large vehicles at major public events. This technologically advanced round features an aerodynamic secant ogive profile, a sharp pointed tip, and superior concentricity, giving it an extremely high ballistic coefficient for maximum accuracy. With a muzzle energy of over 13,000 foot-pounds, the .50 caliber A-Max cartridge delivers both accuracy and consistency in critical operations.
Purpose: The ammunition is used in conjunction with the department’s .50 caliber precision rifle to prevent, deter, or stop mass casualty incidents, particularly those involving large vehicles used as weapons during major events.
Authorized Use: With the approval of the Police Chief or their designee, only members of the SWAT – Sniper Unit or approved and SWAT-certified officers are authorized to deploy the .50 caliber precision rifle and associated ammunition. Use is permitted only after the rifle has been properly sighted in and the operator has recently qualified. This equipment shall only be used in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, and in accordance with Pasadena Police Department Policy 408 (Special Weapons and Tactics) and Policy 312 (Firearms) as well as any other applicable department policies.
Required Training: Operators must complete a sniper certification course and participate in at least two hours of annual training. Only certified snipers who have been specifically authorized are permitted to use this ammunition.
Quantity 70 rounds
Purchase Cost $675 total
Expected Lifespan Until expended
Fiscal Impact Costs vary based on use and are determined by operational and training needs. Estimated annual cost $0-$1,000.
15 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
Category 12 – “Flashbang” grenades, “tear gas,” and “pepper balls,” excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray.
Flashbang
Description: The Pasadena Police Department currently maintains an inventory of four types of flashbang distraction devices: CTS 7290, DD 8920NR, and ALS Tech Magnum. All are non-lethal devices designed to create a bright flash and loud sound, momentarily overwhelming the senses of subjects and providing officers with a tactical advantage for 6 to 8 seconds. The CTS 7290 (now discontinued) and its replacement, the CTS 7290M, are the department’s current operational distraction devices. The DD 8920NR and ALS Tech Magnum, formerly used in deployments, are now being phased out and retained for training purposes only, in favor of maintaining consistency in equipment. None of these devices are designed to generate shrapnel or projectiles designed to injure or kill.
Purpose: Flashbang distraction devices are used to temporarily distract and incapacitate dangerous suspects, allowing officers to safely resolve high-risk incidents. Common uses include hostage rescue, barricaded subject situations, high-risk warrant services, active shooter incidents, and SWAT training exercises. Flashbangs are standard issue equipment for Special Weapons and Tactics teams across California and nationwide.
Authorized Use: Deployment of flashbang distraction devices requires authorization from an Incident Commander or SWAT Supervisor. Only SWAT or SWAT-certified officers who have completed the required training are permitted to use these devices. This equipment shall only be used in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, and in accordance with Pasadena Police Policy 300 (Use of Force) and Policy 408 (Special Weapons and Tactics) as well as any other applicable department policies.
Required Training: All officers authorized to deploy flashbang distraction devices must complete SWAT school and participate in monthly SWAT training.
Fiscal Impact: Costs vary based on use and determined by operational and training needs. Estimated annual cost $0-$5,000.
16 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
Detailed Flashbang Device Inventory
CTS 7290
Distraction device producing a bright flash and loud report, creating a momentary sensory overload to give officers a tactical advantage.
Quantity: 300 Cost: $17,000 Status: Operational Expected Lifespan: 5 years Authorized Use: Tactical deployment.
DD 8920NR
Training Only
A 12-gram, low-roll distraction device designed to emit a loud bang and flash of light.
Previously used operationally, now reserved for training purposes only.
Quantity: 90 Cost: $3000 Status: Training Only Expected Lifespan: 5 years Authorized Use: Training.
ALS Tech Magnum
Training Only
A larger, louder version of standard distraction devices, designed to create a greater sensory impact. No longer deployed in operations; used for SWAT training.
Quantity: 10 Cost: $650 Status: Training Only Expected Lifespan: 5 years Authorized Use: Training.
17 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
Chemical Munitions – CS “Tear gas” and OC “Pepper balls” Description: Chemical agent munitions, commonly referred to as “tear gas,” are maintained by the Pasadena Police Department as non-lethal tools to de-escalate incidents, preserve life, and prevent lethal encounters. These munitions are standard equipment for law enforcement nationwide which include a variety of CS (2-chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile) and OC (Oleoresin Capsicum) agents, each suited for specific tactical, barricade, or crowd management circumstances.
CS “tear gas” is a chemical irritant. It causes temporary discomfort, including eye irritation, tearing, coughing, and breathing discomfort. CS gas is typically deployed through canisters impact munitions and is intended to gain compliance or restore order with minimal long-term effects.
OC (Oleoresin Capsicum), commonly known as pepper spray, is a chemical agent in liquid or powder form that causes temporary irritation. Derived from natural chili pepper extracts, OC causes intense burning sensations to the eyes, skin, and respiratory system, resulting in temporary blindness, coughing, and disorientation.
Required Training: At least one SWAT team member must complete a formal 40-hour chemical agent instructor course. All other authorized users are certified during SWAT school and must participate in annual in-house SWAT training on chemical agent deployment, policy, and legal considerations.
Purpose: Chemical agents are employed to limit escalation in situations where lethal force is undesirable or prohibited, including:
• Managing self-destructive, dangerous, or combative individuals • Riot and crowd control during criminal or civil unrest • Obtaining tactical advantage
• Handling potentially vicious animals
• Training or approved demonstrations
Authorized Use: During civil unrest, deployment of chemical agents must be authorized by the Chief of Police or designee. For barricaded suspects, the Incident Commander or SWAT Commander may authorize use. Only POST-certified officers trained in the use of chemical agents may deploy these munitions. This equipment shall only be used in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, including those identified in Assembly Bill 48 and in accordance with Pasadena Police Policy 300 (Use of Force), Policy 408 (Special Weapons and Tactics) and Policy 469 (First Amendment Assemblies) as well as any other applicable department policies.
Fiscal Impact: Costs vary based on use and determined by operational and training needs. Estimated annual cost $0-$20,000.
18 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
Detailed Chemical Agent Inventory – Handheld Devices
1073 – Maximum Smoke
Designed for outdoor use in crowd-control situations, expelling smoke for 30-40 seconds. Provides visual distraction, can encourage dispersal, or offer concealment in tactical incidents.
Quantity: 50 Cost: $1,512.50 Status: Operational Expected Lifespan: 5 years Authorized Use: Tactical deployment, barricaded subject and/or civil unrest.
1072 – Spede-Heat CS
A high-volume, continuous distribution CS canister for outdoor deployment, featuring multiple gas ports and heat to prevent suspect reuse. Used when criminal crowds become combative and presents a risk to officers or others.
Quantity: 50 Cost: $1,300 Status: Operational Expected Lifespan: 5 years Authorized Use: Barricaded subject and/or civil unrest.
1026 – Triple-Chaser CS
Training Only
Three canisters for area coverage, each separating to land apart and maximize coverage.
Highly effective when a single officer must introduce multiple gas sources.
Quantity: 40 Cost: $1,400 Status: Training Only Expected Lifespan: 5 years Authorized Use: Not for operational use
1050 – OC/CS Aerosol Gas
Training Only
Designed for indoor use, containing no CFCs or fire risk. Most effective in confined areas, especially for cell extractions or barricades where pyrotechnics are not practical.
Quantity: 6 Cost: $267 Status: Operational Expected Lifespan: 5 years Authorized Use: Not for operational use.
19 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
1032 – Flameless Tri-Chamber CS
Indoor CS deployment with reduced fire risk. Used for tactical deployments where minimizing fire hazard is critical, primarily in barricade situations.
Quantity: 10 Cost: $300 Status: Operational Expected Lifespan: 5 years Authorized Use: Barricaded subject and/or civil unrest.
1016 – Pocket Tactical CS
Compact hand-launched CS smoke device for signaling, covering movement, or crowd management when only minimal force is needed.
Quantity: 40 Cost: $800 Status: Operational Expected Lifespan: 5 years Authorized Use: Civil unrest.
1092 – Han-Ball Device CS
Training only
Outdoor CS device expelled in 15-20 seconds; disperses unruly, violent crowds when direct officer contact is unsafe.
Quantity: 10 Cost: $2,035 Status: Operational Expected Lifespan: 5 years Authorized Use: Not for operational use.
20 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
Detailed Chemical Agent Inventory – 40 MM Munitions
1262/2262 – Ferret 40mm CS Powder Barricade Round
Penetrates barriers, delivering CS powder to dislodge barricaded subjects and encourage surrender.
Quantity: 110 Cost: $2,035 Status: Operational Expected Lifespan: 5 years Authorized Use: Barricaded subject.
1292/2292 – Ferret 40mm Liquid CS Barricade Round
Similar to above, delivers a limited-area CS irritant for more controlled, indoor deployments.
Quantity: 20 Cost: $370 Status: Operational Expected Lifespan: 5 years Authorized Use: Barricaded subject.
6172 – Skat Shell CS 40mm Multiple Projectile Round
Training Only
Outdoor, multi-projectile CS round with maximum coverage, designed for crowd management and rapid, broad deployment.
Quantity: 20 Cost: $525 Status: Training Only Expected Lifespan: 5 years Authorized Use: Not for operational use
2190/2290 – Ferret 40mm OC Powder Barricade Round
OC powder barricade round designed for animal control or higher-tolerance subjects when CS may not be appropriate.
Quantity: 100 Cost: $2,625 Status: Operational Expected Lifespan: 5 years Authorized Use: Barricaded subject.
6182 – Spede-Heat 40mm Long Range
Outdoor, pyrotechnic CS round for long-range crowd control, providing continuous burn and wide coverage.
Quantity: 60 Cost: $1,300 Status: Operational Expected Lifespan: 5 years Authorized Use: Civil unrest.
21 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
6320 – Direct Impact 40mm OC Crushable Foam Round
Direct fire, combines blunt trauma with OC powder for targeted incapacitation of individuals during crowd or barricade scenarios.
Quantity: 30 Cost: $915 Status: Operational Expected Lifespan: 5 years Authorized Use: Barricaded subject and/or civil unrest.
6322 – Direct Impact 40mm CS Crushable Foam Round
Similar to above, using CS powder for targeted incapacitation during high-risk events.
Quantity: 30 Cost: $915 Status: Operational Expected Lifespan: 5 years Authorized use: Barricaded subject and/or civil unrest.
6323 – Direct Impact 40mm Inert Crushable Foam Round
Inert training munition, but could be deployed in a live incident.
Quantity: 10 Cost: $150 Status: Operational Expected Lifespan: 5 years Authorized Use: Barricaded subject and/or civil unrest.
6042 – Muzzle Blast 40mm CS
Close-range CS deployment, filling dispersal lines or clearing rooms/attics.
Quantity: 20 Cost: $100 Status: Operational Expected Lifespan: 5 years Authorized Use: Barricaded subject and/or civil unrest.
Detailed Chemical Agent Inventory – 12 GA Munitions
3092 – Ferret 12-Gauge Powder CS Barricade Round
Training Only
Shotgun round with powder carrier, used for enhanced penetration in barricade scenarios.
Quantity: 30 Cost: $150 Status: Training Only Expected Lifespan: 5 years Authorized Use: Not for operational use.
22 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
PepperBall TAC-SA and PepperBall Live-X projectile
Description: The PepperBall TAC-SA is a yellow, semi-automatic launcher equipped with a gravity hopper and mechanical trigger, designed to fire non-lethal “pepper balls” containing powdered PAVA (OC) irritant. Utilizing high-pressure air, the system delivers projectiles much like traditional paintball markers, but with chemical agent and kinetic impact effects. The TAC-SA can launch powder-filled projectiles at targets up to 60 feet away and saturate areas as large as 160 feet. This system is intended to help law enforcement safely manage armed and/or violent individuals or crowds, combining both chemical and kinetic force as a de-escalation tool.
The department also maintains PepperBall LIVE-X projectiles, which contain a high concentration of PAVA irritant for direct impact or area saturation. Each projectile provides the effect of 10 standard PepperBall LIVE rounds, with a maximum direct impact range of 150 feet and an area saturation capability exceeding 390 feet.
Purpose: PepperBall Launchers and Rounds are used to de-escalate incidents involving combative subjects and to limit conflict escalation where lethal force is prohibited or undesirable. Appropriate scenarios include self-destructive or combative individuals, riot and crowd control, civil unrest, obtaining tactical advantage, addressing potentially vicious animals, and for use during training exercises or demonstrations.
Authorized Use: A supervisor or their designee may authorize use. Only officers who have been trained and certified in PepperBall deployment are authorized to use the system. This equipment shall only be used in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, including those identified in Assembly Bill 48 and in accordance with Pasadena Police Policy 300 (Use of Force), Policy 408 (Special Weapons and Tactics) and Policy 469 (First Amendment Assemblies) as well as any other applicable department policies.
Required Training: Department less lethal instructors are certified through a 30-hour POST-approved instructor course and provide training and certification for department members. All officers authorized to use PepperBall launchers must complete this training and participate in department-wide refresher training at least twice annually.
PepperBall TAC-SA Launcher
Quantity: 4 Cost: $7,700 Status: Operational
Expected Lifespan: No expiration
Fiscal Impact: As needed for maintenance depending on usage and deployment.
Estimated annual cost $0-2,500.
PepperBall LIVE-X Projectile
Quantity: 1,875 Cost: $5,700 Status: Operational
Expected Lifespan: 5-year shelf life
Fiscal Impact: AS needed depending on usage and deployments.
Estimated annual cost $0-$5,000.
23 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
Category 14 – 40mm projectile launchers
Description: For over 15 years, the Pasadena Police Department has deployed 40mm less lethal launchers as the primary platform for less-lethal impact and chemical agent deployment. These delivery systems offer superior accuracy, range, and versatility compared to legacy 12-gauge options, enabling officers to respond effectively to a variety of incidents, from high-risk barricades to large-scale civil unrest. The current launcher inventory includes single-shot, dual-barrel, and multi-launcher platforms, each optimized for different operational needs.
Purpose: 40mm launcher platforms are less-lethal delivery systems used by law enforcement to deploy a variety of munitions, including kinetic impact rounds, chemical agents, and smoke. These launchers provide officers with a versatile and accurate tool for managing crowd control, high-risk encounters, or critical incidents. Designed for precision and safety, they allow for the strategic deployment of less- lethal force from a controlled distance.
Required Training: All operators must complete POST certification and annual in-house refresher less lethal training provided by certified firearms instructors and SWAT instructors.
Authorized Use: Authorization for use during civil unrest requires approval from the Chief of Police or designee. In barricaded suspect scenarios, authorization must come from the Incident Commander or SWAT Commander. This equipment shall only be used in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, including those identified in Assembly Bill 48 and in accordance with Pasadena Police Policy 300 (Use of Force), Policy 408 (Special Weapons and Tactics) and Policy 469 (First Amendment Assemblies) as well as any other applicable department policies.
Fiscal Impact: Maintenance is performed as needed; costs vary with use and deployment. Estimated annual cost $0-$2,500.
24 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
Detailed Launcher Inventory
40mm LMT Tactical Single Launcher, Expandable Stock
Manufactured for Defense Technology, the 40LMTS is a tactical single-shot launcher with an expandable stock and integrated front grip. Ambidextrous sling mounts and optics compatibility make this model ideal for everyday patrol and tactical deployment of less-lethal rounds, including direct impact and chemical munitions.
Quantity: 5 Cost: $4,245 Status: Operational
Expected Lifespan: No expiration
40mm Defense Technologies Single Launcher
A fixed stock, single shot 40mm launcher with a front grip and sling mount.
Compatible with all standard 40mm less-lethal rounds, this platform is widely used in patrol, tactical, and crowd control deployments.
Quantity: 10 Cost: $6,390 Status: Operational
Expected Lifespan: No expiration
40mm P540-1 Pump Multi-Launcher
Pump-action, magazine-fed 40mm launcher with a six-shot capacity, rifled barrel, and double-action trigger system. Provides officers with rapid follow-up shots and the ability to deploy multiple munition types in quick succession, which is particularly valuable in high-intensity civil unrest.
Quantity: 3 Cost: $3,690 Status: Operational
Expected Lifespan: No expiration
40mm Deuce Over/Under Two-Barrel Multi-Launcher
Dual-barrel, over/under configuration, featuring multiple picatinny rails, collapsible butt stock, and ambidextrous controls. This system allows officers to carry and deploy two different types of less-lethal rounds with immediate access, optimizing tactical flexibility during complex incidents.
Quantity: 4 Cost: $10,572 Status: Operational
Expected Lifespan: No expiration
25 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
40mm L540-1 Shot Spring Advance Launcher
A break-action, spring-advanced six-shot launcher with rifled barrel and safety features. Provides substantial munition capacity with enhanced safety mechanisms, suitable for large-scale deployments or extended operations.
Quantity: 1 Cost: $2,670 Status: Operational
Expected Lifespan: No expiration
26 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
Category 14 – 40mm impact munitions
Description: The Pasadena Police Department maintains a range of 40mm specialty impact and kinetic munitions to provide officers with less-lethal options for safely de-escalating high-risk encounters. These rounds, available in sponge, rubber, wood, and foam variants, can be deployed in a wide range of situations ranging from managing combative individuals and suicidal persons to riot control and animal deterrence. The goal is always to resolve incidents as safely as possible, minimizing the risk of serious injury to the public, officers, and subjects involved.
Purpose: 40mm kinetic impact munitions are less-lethal projectiles used by law enforcement to gain compliance from individuals during high-risk or crowd control situations. Designed to deliver controlled blunt force, these munitions are intended to incapacitate or deter aggressive behavior without causing long-term injury when used properly. They are typically deployed from a launcher and aimed at large muscle groups to minimize the risk of serious harm.
Required Training: All officers authorized to use 40mm munitions must have POST certification on these systems and complete initial and annual refresher training provided by the Firearms Training Team/SWAT team. Annual refresher training occurs twice annually.
Authorized Use: Deployment during civil unrest requires authorization from the Chief of Police or designee. In barricaded suspect incidents, the Incident Commander or SWAT Commander may authorize use. This equipment shall only be used in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, including those identified in Assembly Bill 48 and in accordance with Pasadena Police Policy 300 (Use of Force), Policy 408 (Special Weapons and Tactics) and Policy 469 (First Amendment Assemblies) as well as any other applicable department policies.
Fiscal Impact: Costs vary based on deployment and replacement needs to maintain operational readiness.
27 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
Detailed Impact Munition Inventory
6325 – Exact Impact 40mm Standard Range Sponge Round
The Exact Impact 40mm Standard Range Sponge Round is the department’s most commonly deployed 40mm less-lethal round and is utilized regularly in patrol, riot control, and tactical applications. This direct-fire, point-of-aim/point-of-impact round features a lightweight, high-speed projectile with a plastic body and a sponge nose. The round is spin-stabilized via a rifling collar for consistent accuracy and is propelled by smokeless powder, delivering reliable velocities and effective, less-lethal impact.
Quantity: 300 Cost: $8,595 Status: Operational Expected Lifespan: 5 years Authorized Use: Barricaded/violent subject and/or civil unrest.
6325LE – Exact Impact LE 40mm Extended Range Sponge Round This extended-range variant is similar in construction to the standard patrol round but is engineered to reach greater distances, allowing officers to maximize safety and time when responding to volatile or dispersed threats. It provides consistent velocities and is designed for direct fire in patrol, riot control, and tactical applications.
Quantity: 20 Cost: $616 Status: Operational Expected Lifespan: 5 years Authorized Use: Barricaded/violent subject and/or civil unrest.
6530 – Direct Impact 40mm Reloadable Training Kit
Training Only
6530LE-50 40mm Reloadable Training Round provides the same point of impact accuracy as the 40mm munitions it simulates and is the most cost-effective way to conduct training. This reloadable training kit allows officers to practice loading, sighting, trigger pull and range estimate at a fraction of the cost of tactical rounds. Product for use on inanimate targets. These rounds are not for use on humans and are solely for officer training.
Quantity: 250 Cost: $1,489 Status: Training Only Expected Lifespan: 5 years Authorized Use: Used for bi-annual qualifications in training only
28 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
4557 – Exact Impact 40mm Standard Range Sponge Round
The 40mm Sponge Impact Round is a 40mm less-lethal round and is utilized regularly in patrol, riot control, and tactical applications. This direct-fire, point-of-aim/point-of- impact round features a lightweight, high-speed projectile with a plastic body and a sponge nose. The round is spin-stabilized via a rifling collar for consistent accuracy and is propelled by smokeless powder, delivering reliable velocities and effective, less-lethal impact.
Quantity: 20 Cost: $500 Status: Operational Expected Lifespan: 5 years Authorized Use: Barricaded/violent subject and/or civil unrest.
6097 – Stinger 40mm 60-Caliber Rubber Balls Round
Training Only
The Stinger 40mm 60-caliber Rubber Balls Round is most widely used as a riot control tool during civil unrest and corrections operations. This is not a direct-fire round; upon deployment, eighteen 60-caliber rubber balls are dispersed and designed to skip off the ground, targeting the lower extremities of combative subjects. This round is considered a pain compliance tool equivalent to punches and strikes, used when force is necessary for dispersing criminally resistant groups that have been given a dispersal order.
Quantity: 150 Cost: $4,545 Status: Training Only Expected Lifespan: 5 years Authorized Use: Not for operational use
6098 – Multiple Wood Baton Round 40mm
The 40mm Wood Baton Round is intended for skip-fire or direct-fire applications at the operator’s discretion. Operators must be trained in less-lethal munitions and carefully assess shot placement based on threat, distance, and other factors. The round is suitable for pain compliance over greater distances and is used for riot control or managing combative groups.
Quantity: 30 Cost: $811.50 Status: Training Only Expected Lifespan: 5 years Authorized Use: Tactical applications
29 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
6099 – Multiple Foam Baton Round 40mm
Training Only
The Multiple Foam Baton Round contains three foam projectiles and is designed for direct or skip-fire use. Its construction allows for deployment at closer distances while minimizing the risk of injury, making it valuable for riot situations where police and protestors are in close proximity.
Quantity: 30 Cost: $843 Status: Training Only Expected Lifespan: 5 years Authorized Use: Not for operational use
6064 – Multiple Rubber Baton Round 40mm
Training Only
The Multiple Rubber Baton Round contains three rubber projectiles and is primarily used as a crowd management tool. Its design provides more consistent velocities and tighter patterns than older munitions, delivering pain compliance over greater distances. This round is used for routing crowds or managing groups that are mildly resistive.
Quantity: 170 Cost: $4,777 Status: Training Only Expected Lifespan: 5 years Authorized Use: Not for operational use
6326 – Direct Impact 40mm Marking Crushable Foam Round
The Direct Impact Marking Crushable Foam Round is a point-of-aim, point-of-impact round loaded with a green marking agent. It is primarily used to identify aggressors during riot situations, allowing responding officers to distinguish key individuals in crowd scenarios.
Quantity: 30 Cost: $1,194 Status: Operational Expected Lifespan: 5 years Authorized Use: Civil unrest.
30 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
1090 – Stinger 32 Caliber Rubber Ball Device
Training Only
The Stinger 32 Caliber Rubber Ball Device is a hand-tossed munition that delivers psychological and physiological effects via rubber pellets, light, and sound. Deployed as a crowd management tool, this device features a short delay fuse and projects rubber balls in a 50-foot radius, making it suitable for dispersing riotous crowds when direct 40mm deployment is not possible.
Quantity: 10 Cost: $577 Status: Training Only Expected Lifespan: 5 years Authorized Use: Not for operational use
31 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
Category 16 – Equipment controlled by the Federal Defense Logistics Agency Bell OH-58 Helicopter
Description: The Pasadena Police Department operates three Bell OH-58 helicopters acquired from the military, each equipped with lighting, radio, navigation, and camera systems. These patrol helicopters are valued at $92,290 each but were acquired at no cost to the city. The helicopters serve as airborne law enforcement platforms, providing critical observation and support capabilities.
Purpose: Referred to as “PD-1,” the patrol helicopter provides aerial observation and support for law enforcement operations. The Tactical Flight Observer (TFO) aboard the helicopter can identify people, vehicles, evidence, dangers, and other factors that may not be visible to officers on the ground. The TFO also coordinates ground units during major incidents, offering an unobstructed perspective and comprehensive overview. The helicopter supports a wide range of functions, including patrol operations, detective investigations, SWAT operations, traffic management during major events like the Rose Bowl and parades, and more. Notably, the helicopter is not equipped as a fixed weapons platform. The Air Operations Unit supports both the City of Pasadena and regional Foothill Air Support Team (F.A.S.T) partners, covering over 150 square miles and serving approximately 700,000 residents.
Authorized Use: Use of the helicopters is authorized by the Chief of Police and managed by the Air Operations Unit Lieutenant or Supervisor. Only officers and staff who have received proper training in aircraft operations are permitted to utilize the helicopters. Pilots must hold a valid commercial pilot’s license and appropriate certifications. This equipment shall only be used in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and in accordance with Pasadena Police Policy Policy 706 (Vehicle Use) as well as any other applicable department policies.
Required Training: Pilots must possess a Commercial Pilot Rating and complete Bell Transition Flight School. Pilots assigned to day watch patrol are required to have at least 300 flight hours. Night watch patrol requires 400 flight hours, including at least 100 hours of night flight time. All pilots must also successfully complete a bi-annual flight review with a Certified Flight Instructor.
Quantity
3 helicopters
Purchase Cost $0 (acquired from military); value: $92,290 each Expected Lifespan 20 years
Fiscal Impact
Annual maintenance and operating cost are
approximately $354,000 for all three helicopters, with
20% of the cost paid by F.A.S.T contract cities.
Maintenance is performed regularly in accordance
with FAA requirements; costs may vary.
32 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
2024-2025 Military Equipment Use Summary
This section outlines the use of military equipment during the reporting period. Certain consumable items such as ammunition, diversionary devices, pepper balls, chemical agents, and 40mm munitions are routinely used throughout the year for training purposes to ensure ongoing operational proficiency as well as during unexpected operations. As such this causes inventory to fluctuate, and those items are replenished as needed to maintain operational readiness.
Category 1 – Unmanned Aerial Systems and Unmanned Ground Systems The drone was deployed 5 times during this period, totaling less than 6 minutes of flight (2 times for training and 3 times for search warrant operations). Technical issues have limited its use, and the platform is currently under evaluation.
The tactical robot was not deployed during this reporting period.
Category 2 – Armored Rescue Vehicle
The BearCat armored vehicle was deployed 54 times, including 19 Rose Bowl events, 27 training deployments, and 3 community engagement events. During the Eaton Fire response, the BearCat was used for evacuations as a rescue vehicle. It was also deployed in five SWAT search warrants for personnel protection. Pasadena SWAT utilized the Glendale Police Department’s BearCat on 10 occasions, including one training deployment, three search warrants, and six FIFA events.
Category 5 – Mobile Command Vehicles
The Mobile Command Center (MCC) was deployed 28 times to support training exercises, community engagement, and critical incident management. Notably, the MCC served as the primary police operations base at the Rose Bowl during the Eaton Fire response, where it was deployed for 18 consecutive days.
The Mobile Command Post (MCP) was not deployed during this period and is being repurposed for support vehicle use.
Category 7 – Lock defeating rounds and breaching shotgun The breaching shotgun and lock defeating rounds were not deployed during this reporting period.
Category 8 – .50 Caliber Rifles
The .50 caliber rifle was deployed twice: once for Rose Parade overwatch and once for training to confirm accuracy and proficiency of operator prior to the event.
Category 9 – .50 Caliber Munitions
Seven rounds were expended during training to confirm zero prior to Rose Parade deployment.
33 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
Category 12 – Flashbang Devices, Chemical Agents and PepperBall A total of 25 flashbang devices were used—12 during three training deployments and 13 in SWAT operations. Chemical agents were deployed in one SWAT operation involving a barricaded suspect (1 Spede-Heat CS and 2 Pocket Tactical CS canisters).
PepperBall was deployed twice: once by patrol and once by SWAT for area saturation in barricaded situations.
Category 14 – 40mm Impact Munitions
40mm less-lethal munitions were deployed four times: once by patrol (direct impact on an armed suspect) and three times by SWAT (involving 24 direct impact rounds, 47 CS ferret rounds, and 12 OC ferret rounds, none of which were used for direct strikes on suspects).
Category 16 – Bell OH-58 Helicopters
The Pasadena Police Department currently maintains three Bell OH-58 helicopters. During this period, the helicopters accumulated 1,571.3 hours of flight time, supporting patrol, training, and F.A.S.T. deployments. They were also used in three SWAT operations and two SWAT training exercises.
Bell OH-58 Patrol Hours F.A.S.T. Hours Training Hours Total Hours N224KB 644.7 106 0 750.7
N239PS 746.5 46.4 8.3 801.2
N854RJ 0 0 19.4 19.4
34 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
2024/2025 Military Equipment Detailed Use Summary (June 1, 2024 – June 30, 2025) All military equipment use was in the City of Pasadena, unless otherwise indicated.
Date Military Equipment Purpose for Use
6/12/2024 BearCat, (8) Flashbangs PPD SWAT training at Glendale Range 6/25/2024 BearCat, drone PPD SWAT training in the City of Walnut 7/15/2024 Mobile Command Center PPD Officer Tactical Training 7/17/2024 Mobile Command Center Tactical Response Training with Campus Safety Staff 7/19/2024 Mobile Command Center PPD Officer Tactical Training 7/25/2024 Mobile Command Center Community Relations Section Neighborhood Deployment
7/30/2024 BearCat, drone PPD SWAT training
8/6/2024 BearCat PPD SWAT training
8/6/2024 Mobile Command Center National Night Out Events 8/7/2024 Mobile Command Center All-Hands Meeting for DoIT Staff 8/15/2024 Mobile Command Center Physical Agility Testing 8/20/2024 BearCat PPD SWAT training
8/22/2024 Mobile Command Center Shop With a Cop Event
8/28/2024 Mobile Command Center Mobile Field Force Training 9/3/2024 BearCat PPD SWAT training and standby
9/7/2024 BearCat Deployed during a Soccer game
9/9/2024 Mobile Command Center Suicide Prevention Month Community Walk 9/14/2024 BearCat Deployed during the UCLA game.
9/24/2024 BearCat PPD SWAT training
10/2/2024 Mobile Command Center MCC Driver Training Group 1 10/3/2024 Mobile Command Center MCC Driver Training Group 1 10/10/2024 BearCat, (1) Flashbang PPD SWAT served search warrant 10/10/2024 Mobile Command Center Operation Riptide-Task Force Support 10/12/2024 BearCat Deployed during the UCLA game.
10/15/2024 BearCat, Drone, Flashbang PPD SWAT assisted LASD with search warrant 10/29/2024 BearCat PPD SWAT training in the City of Azusa 11/8/2024 BearCat Deployed during the UCLA game.
11/12/2024 BearCat PPD SWAT training in the City of Montebello 11/13/2024 Mobile Command Center MCC Driver Training Group 2 11/14/2024 Mobile Command Center MCC Driver Training Group 2 11/23/2024 BearCat Deployed during the UCLA game.
35 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
11/26/2024 BearCat, .50 Cal ammo and rifle for New
Year preperation
PPD SWAT training in the City of Azusa
11/30/2024 BearCat Deployed during the UCLA game.
12/6/2024 Mobile Command Center PPD Citizen Motorcycle Academy 12/10/2024 BearCat PPD SWAT training in the City of Monterey Park 12/17/2024 BearCat PPD SWAT training in the City of Azusa 1/1/2025 .50 Cal Rifle Rose Parade anti-vehicle protection/Sniper deployment.
1/7/2025 BearCat Used for evacuations during the Eaton Fire 1/8/2025-
1/25/2025
Mobile Command Center Eaton Fire Staging Area -Command Post Operations 1/29/2025 BearCat, Glendale BearCat, (3) Flash bangs PPD SWAT training. 3 flashbangs deployed during training.
2/12/2025 Mobile Command Center MCC Driver Training Group 3 2/13/2025 Mobile Command Center MCC Driver training Group 3 2/18/2025 BearCat AC/DC Concert
2/19/2025 BearCat PPD SWAT training
2/20/2025 BearCat, Glendale BearCat, (2) 40mm Less
Lethal, Drone, Bell OH-58
PPD SWAT served search warrant in the City of La
Habra Heights 2 40mm direct impact rounds used
2/21/2025 BearCat Poke'mon Go Tour
2/22/2025 BearCat Poke'mon Go Tour
2/23/2025 BearCat Poke'mon Go Tour
2/26/2025 BearCat, Glendale BearCat, (5) 40mm Less
Lethal, (7) Flash bangs, Bell OH-58
PPD SWAT deployment for search warrant with
multiple buildings on location, 7 Distraction devices
and 5 40mm direct impact munitions were
deployed.
2/26/2025 Mobile Command Center MCC Driver Training Group 4 2/27/2025 Mobile Command Center MCC Driver Training Group 4 3/3/2025 Pepper ball Patrol Deployment Pepper balls used to saturate area where barricaded suspects were hiding.
3/12/2025 BearCat PPD SWAT training
3/19/2025 BearCat PPD SWAT training in the City of Azusa 3/24/2025 40 mm direct impact (1) Patrol responded to a violent person armed with a knife cutting himself near pedestrians and vehicles
in the middle of the intersection. (1) 40mm direct
impact round was deployed to subdue the suspect.
4/3/2025 BearCat, (1) Flashbang PPD SWAT and Multi-Agency Training event at the Rose Bowl
4/3/2025 Mobile Command Center PPD SWAT and Multi-Agency Training event at the Rose Bowl
4/9/2025 BearCat PPD SWAT training
4/16/2025 BearCat PPD SWAT training
4/23/2025 BearCat PPD SWAT training in the City of Azusa 36 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
4/23/2025 Mobile Command Center Helicopter Fly-In Support 5/7/2025 BearCat BC with team at movement training
5/8/2025 Mobile Command Center Police/Fire Memorial Event 5/10/2025 BearCat Just Like Heaven Music Festival
5/14/2025 BearCat PPD SWAT training
5/14/2025 (1) Flashbang Recruitment training video
5/14/2025 PPD BearCat, 2 Glendale BearCat, (1)
Speed Heat CS, (2) Pocket Tactical CS, (17)
40mm direct impact, (47) 40mm CS
Ferrett, (12) 40mm OC Ferrett, (2) 40mm
OC direct impact, (4) Flash bangs, (20)
Pepper ball rounds, Bell OH-58
PPD SWAT search warrant to arrest a felony
barricaded suspect who was believed to be armed
and dangerous.
5/15/2025 Mobile Operations Center PPD Recruitment Video Shoot 5/17/2025 BearCat Cruel World Music Festival
5/20/2025 Mobile Command Center Coffee With a Cop
5/28/2025 BearCat PPD SWAT training in the City of Azusa 5/28/2025 Bell OH-58 PPD SWAT Training in Banning, CA
5/31/2025 BearCat Head in the Clouds Festival
6/1/2025 BearCat Head in the Clouds Festival
6/3/2025 BearCat Participated in the procession from LA Coroners Officer to Forest Lawn in Covina for Baldwin Park PD
fallen officer - Samuel Riveros
6/4/2025 BearCat PPD SWAT training in the City of Alhambra 6/12/2025 BearCat PPD SWAT training at Pitchess Detention Center 6/12/2025 Bell OH-58 PPD SWAT training in Banning, CA
6/14/2025 BearCat Displayed at the Pasadena Car Show
6/15/2025 BearCat, Glendale BearCat FIFA soccer game
6/15/2025 Mobile Command Center PPD Annual Car Show Fundraiser 6/17/2025 BearCat, Glendale BearCat FIFA soccer game
6/19/2025 BearCat, Glendale BearCat FIFA soccer game
6/21/2025 BearCat, Glendale BearCat FIFA soccer game
6/23/2025 BearCat, Glendale BearCat FIFA soccer game
6/25/2025 BearCat, Glendale BearCat FIFA soccer game
6/26/2025 BearCat Baldwin Park Police Department - Samual Riveros funeral service
6/29/2025 Mobile Command Center PPD Wellness Event
37 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
Summary of complaints received
The Pasadena Police Department is committed to transparency, accountability, and maintaining public trust in the use of equipment governed by the Military Equipment Use Policy. In accordance with Assembly Bill 481, members of the public may submit complaints or inquiries regarding the use of military equipment or the policy itself.
Complaints and inquiries may be submitted in person at the Pasadena Police Department, by phone at (626) 744-4501, by mail to the Department’s Professional Standards Unit, or electronically through the Police Department’s official website by searching “Pasadena Police Military Equipment” or visiting https://bit.ly/PasadenaPoliceMilitaryEquipment.
All submissions will be reviewed and investigated in accordance with Department policy and recognized best practices. Each complaint will be included as part of the Department’s annual military equipment report in accordance with applicable laws and policies.
The Pasadena Police Department is committed to conducting fair, impartial, and thorough investigations. This process is a key component of our broader mission to serve the community with integrity and professionalism, and to ensure the responsible and lawful use of “military equipment.” Complaints received:
The Pasadena Police Department received 11 noise complaints and 1 inquiry regarding the use of the Bell OH-58 helicopters. There were no other complaints received regarding authorized military equipment in this reporting period.
Date of
complaint
Location of
helicopter
Operational use at
time of complaint
Nature of complaint
8/1/2024 San Gabriel Patrol Noise
9/21/2024 San Marino Patrol/FAST Noise
9/26/2024 Pasadena Patrol Noise
2/25/2025 Pasadena Patrol Noise
2/27/2025 Pasadena Patrol Noise
4/17/2025 Pasadena Patrol Noise
6/6/2025 Pasadena Patrol Noise
6/7/2025 Pasadena Patrol Noise
6/8/2025 Pasadena Patrol Noise
6/9/2025 Pasadena Patrol Inquiry
6/10/2025 Pasadena Patrol Noise
6/21/2025 Pasadena FIFA World Cup Noise
38 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
Summary of any violations and audits
An internal review revealed there were no policy violations of Pasadena Police Department personnel unlawfully deploying or discharging military equipment during this rating period.
An audit of the Department’s chemical and impact munitions inventory determined that some munitions have exceeded their recommended service life and are due for replacement. These items will be systematically phased out and replaced with similar models to ensure consistency, maintain safety standards, and streamline the types of munitions authorized for operational deployment. During the review certain munitions have been designated for training purposes or destruction, as they are not authorized for operational use. Munitions identified in this report as “training only” and “not for operational use” will not be replenished once expended in a training environment or destroyed in a manner authorized by applicable laws and/or policies. The audit results were used in the creation of this report.
39 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
Fiscal Impact
The Pasadena Police Department is budgeted for 239 sworn officers, 7 Community Service Officers (CSO), 26 dispatchers, and 110.25 full-time and part-time professional staff. The operating budget for the department for the 2024-2025 fiscal year is $111,078,762.
The City of Pasadena adopts an operating budget on a fiscal year basis (beginning July 1). The cost of the equipment replacement purchases is reflected in this report for June 2024 to June 2025 pursuant to Assembly Bill 481.
During this report period, the Pasadena Police Department spent approximately $7,333 replacing 40mm and Pepper Ball munitions. $9,304 was spent on the Bearcat for required maintenance. $7,320 was spent on the MCC for required maintenance. Total expenditures associated with military equipment this reporting period is approximately $370,835 to include the Bell OH-58 helicopters as detailed below.
Military equipment expenditures were less than 0.5% of the Police Departments annual operating budget for this review period.
Operating / Maintenance approximate cost 2024/2025
The Police Department’s Air Support division has a budget of roughly $5,170,528. The Foothill Air Support Team (F.A.S.T.) has a budget of $545,037. The 3 Bell OH-58 helicopters are utilized for Patrol, F.A.S.T. and training operations. Approximately 20% of the annual cost is paid by F.A.S.T. contract cities.
The maintenance and usage costs for the Bell OH-58 helicopters are detailed below:
Military Equipment Funding Source Fiscal Year Cost
Unmanned Aerial Systems (Drones) N/A $0
Unmanned Ground Systems (Robot) N/A $0
Armored Vehicle (Bearcat) General Fund $9,304.32
Mobile Command Center (MCC) General Fund $7,320.34
Mobile Command Post (MCP) N/A $0
Lock defeating rounds/Breaching shotgun N/A $0
.50 Caliber Rifle N/A $0
.50 Caliber ammunition N/A $0
Flashbangs/Chemical Agents/Pepper Ball General Fund $5,332.65 40 MM and Impact Munitions General Fund $2,000
Bell OH-58 Helicopter General Fund (See table below)
Military Equipment Bell OH-58 Flight Hours x $225.46 Hourly rate N224KB 751 $169,320.46
N293PS 801 $180,593.46
N854RJ 19 $4,283.74
Totals 1,571 $354,197.66
40 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
Projected Military Equipment Acquisitions for FY 2026 (July 2025 – June 2026) Military equipment acquisitions for Fiscal Year 2026 will be guided by current replenishment needs and projected usage, particularly for consumable items such as less-lethal munitions, chemical agents, and other operational supplies. These consumables are replaced on an as-needed basis to maintain readiness and ensure the availability of authorized equipment. Quantities may vary throughout the year based on training requirements, operational deployments, and manufacturer-recommended replacement schedules. Estimated costs and inventory levels are subject to fluctuation due to several factors, including inflation, supply chain constraints, manufacturer availability, and actual usage.
The Pasadena Police Department will continue to monitor these factors to ensure both operational readiness and fiscal responsibility. This will require replacing consumable munitions in the upcoming fiscal year to update munitions and replenish expended munitions. Additionally, the Eaton Fire damaged portions of the Police Range facility, resulting in the loss of training munitions that will also require replacement in the upcoming fiscal period.
Estimated cost: $30,000–$50,000.
Planned non-consumable acquisitions for FY 2026 include a comprehensive reassessment of the Pasadena Police Department’s drone platform. Due to ongoing technical issues, all four SWAT-assigned drones need replacement. These issues have significantly impacted the system’s reliability, resulting in failed deployments during critical incidents. Technology has vastly improved since these drones were acquired and there is a need to update the platform. The updated drone platform will enhance tactical deployment capabilities, improve situational awareness, and support a wide range of public safety operations—including major traffic investigations.
As part of this effort, the Department plans to review and update its drone policy to reflect current best practices, evolving technology, and operational needs. The Police Department is currently evaluating the integration of drones into the Traffic section’s Major Accident Investigation Team (M.A.I.T.) response to collisions resulting in serious injury or death. Drone use in MAIT investigations is becoming the industry standard for crash analysis, investigation, and reconstruction. Drone-captured data can be seamlessly integrated with the Department’s existing FARO scanner technology to create detailed 3D recreations of collision scenes.
Policy revisions will be submitted to the Community Police Oversight Commission for review and recommendations, and to the City Council for review and approval. Procurement plans will be submitted to City Council for review and approval in accordance with AB 481.
Estimated cost: $5,000–$30,000.
The Police Department is evaluating the use of explosive breaching equipment for certain tactical situations. This capability is a critical component of a modern tactical team's readiness, particularly in incidents involving barricaded suspects, hostage situations, or high-risk warrant services where rapid and controlled entry is essential.
As the City of Pasadena prepares for the 2028 Olympic events, ensuring access to a full spectrum of tactical tools, including explosive breaching, will be vital to regional preparedness, interagency 41 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
coordination, and the effective response to high-threat scenarios. This capability will be proposed as an addition to the Military Equipment Use Policy, subject to City Council authorization in compliance with AB 481.
Proposed Policy will be submitted to the Community Police Oversight Commission for review and recommendations, and to the City Council for review and approval. Procurement plans will be submitted to City Council for review and approval in accordance with AB 481.
Estimated cost: $7,000–$57,000.
The Mobile Command Center has successfully replaced the aging Mobile Command Post as the Department’s primary command-and-control platform. The former Command Post has been decommissioned, with all operational equipment removed in preparation for it to be repurposed into a support vehicle, similar in function to a recreational unit. As it will no longer serve a command role, the vehicle will be excluded from future reports.
Estimated cost: $5,000–$25,000.
42 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
Conclusion
The Pasadena Police Department’s Annual Military Equipment Use Report reflects our commitment to transparency, accountability, and compliance with both state law and department policy. By sharing this information with our community and elected officials, we aim to build trust and foster a better understanding of the tools, training, and strategies used to keep Pasadena safe.
The equipment and resources outlined in this report are essential to protect both the public and our officers. When used responsibly and with proper training, these tools support effective conflict resolution, enhance situational awareness, and enable thoughtful, professional responses to high-risk incidents. Our ongoing investment in training and professionalism ensures these tools are used appropriately, legally and only when necessary.
As part of a collaborative effort between law enforcement and the community, we remain dedicated to promoting safety, resolving conflict, and delivering service with excellence, innovation and integrity.
This report will be posted to the Polcie Department’s webpage. For further details about the Pasadena Police Department policies referenced in this report or to locate this report online visit https://bit.ly/PasadenaPoliceMilitaryEquipment.
43 | P a g e
2024-2025 Annual Military Equipment Report
General Contact Information :
Lieutenant Anthony Russo - (626) 744 -7159 -
[email protected]
For more information on PPD Military Equipment visit:
https://bit.ly/PasadenaPoliceMilitaryEquipment
AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE GRANT RELATED
DOCUMENTS FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF
TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANT AWARD AND AMEND THE POLICE
DEPARTMENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2026 OPERATING BUDGET BY
RECOGNIZING REVENUE AND APPROPRIATING $545,000 IN
GRANT FUNDS*
DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO
ADOPT THE 2025 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE
AND RELATED CODES*
INFORMATION ONLY
1. RECEIVE ANNUAL REPORTS FOR FISCAL YEAR JULY 2024
THROUGH JUNE 2025 AND WORK PLANS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2025-2026 FOR
A. CODE ENFORCEMENT*
B. COMMUNITY POLICE OVERSIGHT COMMISSION*
C. OLD PASADENA PARKING METER ZONE ADVISORY
COMMISSION*
D. RECREATION AND PARKS COMMISSION*
E. SOUTH LAKE PARKING PLACE COMMISSION*
F. TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMISSION*
CODE ENFORCEMENT*
PASb^^ V-'^^
7 0
•d *
<0 z03 0<D 0
-^^ •o^ 0y ^TEO
Agenda Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Code Enforcement Commission
SUBJECT: ANNUAL REPORT- JULY 2024 THROUGH JUNE 2025, PROPOSED WORK PLAN FOR 2025-2026 AND COMMISSION ATTENDANCE
RECORD - JULY 2024 THROUGH JUNE 2025
RECOMMENDATION:
This report is submitted for information purposes only.
Attached is the following:
1. Report of Work Plan Performance for July 1 , 2024, through June 30, 2025.
2. Proposed Work Plan for July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2026.
3. Report of Commission Attendance for July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025 The above documents were reviewed and approved by the Code Enforcement Commission at our meeting of July 3,2025.
Respectfully Submitted,
MY^!/[/1^_
Michael Warner, ChalT
Code Enforcement Commission
MEETING OF.AGENDA ITEM NO.
CITY OF PASADENA CODE ENFORCEMENT COMMISSION
WORK PLAN PERFORMANCE 7/1/24 - 6/30/25
Year End Report of Accomplishments
MISSION:
The City of Pasadena continues to place a high priority on code compliance efforts to ensure adherence to the City's property maintenance standards and land-use requirements. To meet the City Council's goal of assuring a safe and secure community, staff assigned to the Code Compliance Section of the Planning and Community Development Department provide proactive and complaint-based code enforcement throughout the City.
When submitted, the Code Enforcement Commission's fiscal year (FY) 2024 - 2025 workplan reflected pending discontinuance of the Commission hearing nuisance dog cases and associated appeals under Title 6 of the Pasadena Municipal Code. The last nuisance dog matter (an appeal of a Panel determination) was heard by the Commission on July 9, 2024. The Pasadena Public Health Department has taken full control of nuisance dog cases and that department staffs and provides a hearing officer for all associated public hearings.
A rearward glance reveals that during FY '23 - '24, nuisance dog hearings and appeals comprised the bulk of matters heard by the Commission. FY '24 - '25 saw a significant reduction in hearing cases with only the appeal and annual report/workplan brought before the Commission during FY '24 - '25.
The Code Enforcement Commission will continue to hear other matters including the enforcement of particular provisions of Titles 8 (Health and Safety), 9 (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare), 14 (Building and Safety) and 17 (Zoning Code) of the Pasadena Municipal Code, and to order action on cases of noncompliance presented by City staff. The Commission also hears and rules on matters concerning retailers operating under the auspices of the "Deemed Approved Alcoholic Beverage Retail Sale Ordinance."
OBJECTIVES:
I. Continue to conduct public hearings to resolve zoning/land-use and property maintenance issues.
STATUS:
During FY '24 - '25, the Code Enforcement Commission held two public meetings, the first of which was an appeal of a nuisance dog matter, the second of which was review of the Commission's FY '24 - 25 Annual Report/Workplan.
The matrix below identifies those Commission meetings.
ADDRESSITEM DATEITEM
1.934 S. Euclid AvenueJuly 9, 2024Appeal - Nuisance Dog
2.Permit Center Hearing Room | August 1,2024Annual Report / Workplan Continue to conduct public hearings of matters referred under the auspices of the Deemed Approved Alcoholic Beverage Retail Sales Ordinance.
STATUS:
During the last fiscal year the Code Enforcement Commission heard no cases referred under the Deemed Approved Alcoholic Beverage Retail Sales Ordinance.
CITY OF PASADENA
CODE ENFORCEMENT COMMISSION
PROPOSED WORK PLAN 7/1/25 - 6/30/26
MISSION:
As amended, the primary purpose of the Code Enforcement Commission is to hear and rule on cases and appeals regarding enforcement of particular provisions of Titles 8 (Health and Safety), 9 (Public Peace, Morals and Welfare), 14 (Building and Safety) and 17 (Zoning Code) of the Pasadena Municipal Code, and to order action on cases of noncompliance presented by City staff. The Commission also hears and rules on matters concerning retailers operating under the auspices of the "Deemed Approved Alcoholic Beverage Retail Sale Ordinance."
At the July 9, 2024, special meeting of the Code Enforcement Commission, the Commission adopted four workplan objectives of which "1" and "2" of that plan were the same then as now. The third proposed objective was: "Notify and guide the Commission of any complaints or lawsuits against the Commission or member," while the fourth was: "Determine who will support the Commission if the Commission or members has an issue."
The City Manager's Office reviewed Objectives "3" and "4" and later determined that those objectives were administrative matters not within the scope of the Commission's purpose and function as set forth in Pasadena Municipal Code Section 2.55.110; and that although it is not within the authority of the Commission to direct staff, staff will take note of these requests.
OBJECTIVES:
1. Continue to conduct public hearings to resolve zoning, land-use, and property maintenance issues.
2. Continue to conduct public hearings of matters referred under the auspices of the Deemed Approved Alcoholic Beverage Retail Sales Ordinance.
I
^
!'^
I
n
c
I
c
I
^§^111111^
^) b o
11111
> -0 -0
1 Fi-0~0r-i v
c [^ ^ ^s ^
"I
0 2 o m
z
D
3 ?
m
m
z
0 = ¥
0)
It J
III.IM'
\~n.^
Ill
li^
S' i.
§ t
!U
I
IllIll
Is ?
^ s
r-t^
li
'!
-0
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
§
0 TO
cu
3 i
0)
3 I
3 £.
^
^.
SL
>
1"0
§l£l.^
s
3 -n
3 I
w
I?
li
31 ^u
r-l-
1/1
I
cn
0 3
3 t
u_
>
-0
.1.
IIsl
< ^
<? -f6
3. ^
!° S-
s'
i
I
2'
^J
IT3 -0
-0-0
>>
^^
^^
^^
^^
^^
^^
^^
^^
^^
^^
gg
51.? I
su
^
i
?
jjtl\~0
1^.
II
fD
15 IIIt31
< -^
0 0
3. 0
m
i^5'S
I
Oi
3 3
'2.
^-
-0
-0
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
NJ
§
II
^J
3 li
°L
>
1"0
11. ]3
13 e-^
-H
I
[U
|3
It
]§
I
9-
Q
3 3
s.
^)
1£ I.
I? I
It!
11 --
I2"
Is a-
0 (t_
1U
re
^
<1
J-^
3 SL
>
1"0
13 Ip
I
aj
II!Ill
Ill
s'1^
II-
£|-is^
c
g-
I
3 ST 3.
Ill
t^?it!
Q.
115
lit£^!1^
§1
-0>-D-0
-0-0-0-0
^^^^
^^^^
^^^^
^^^^
^^^^
^^^^
^^^^
^^^^
^^^^
^^^
M10NJ
§g§§
8 ^
t/1
0 m
-0
JULY 9,2024
SPECIAL MEETING
FULL COMMISSION-APPEAL
>
AUGUST 1,2024
SPECIAL MEETING
ANNUAL REPORT & WORKPLAN
^
SEPTEMBER 5, 2024
REGULAR MEETING
(CANCELED)
^
OCTOBER 3, 2024
REGULAR MEETING
(CANCELED)
^
NOVEMBER 7, 2024
REGULAR MEETING
(CANCELED)
^
DECEMBER 5, 2024
REGULAR MEETING
(CANCELED)
^
JANUARY 2, 2025
REGULAR MEETING
(CANCELED)
g
FEBRUARY 6, 2025
REGULAR MEETING
(CANCELED)
^
MARCH 6, 2025
REGULAR MEETING
(CANCELED)
^
APRIL 3,2025
REGULAR MEETING
CANCELED
^
MAY 1, 2025
REGULAR MEETING
(CANCELD)
^
JUNE 5,2024
REGULAR MEETING
(CANCELED)
TOTAL NUMBER OF MEETINGS
ATTENDED
g
ATTENDANCE PERCENTAGE
n
m 0
m Q.
£ d ^^ i ?^ 0 5,
N) >
Ill
^
NJ
J^
^11
z z n
m n o
is> m 3
0 ^Nl CD
"'s I
•s
03 COMMUNITY POLICE OVERSIGHT COMMISSION*
O F F I C E O F T H E C I T Y A T T O R N E Y / C I T Y P R O S E C U T O R 100 North Garfield Avenue, Room N210 ∙ P.O. Box 7115 ∙ Pasadena, CA 91109- 7215 (626) 744-4141 ∙ Fax (626) 744-4190
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Community P
olice Oversight Commission
August 25, 2025
SUBJECT: ANNUAL REPORT – JULY 1, 2024 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2025, AND WORK PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026
RECOMMENDATION:
This report is
submitted for information purposes only.
Attached are t
he following:
Annual Report of
Accomplishments for July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025
Proposed Work Plan for July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025 The attached documents were reviewed and approved by the Community Police Oversight Commission at our meeting on Thursday, August 14, 2025.
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
Esprit Loren Jones, Chair
Community Police Oversight Commission
1 of 137
1 City of Pasadena
Community Police Oversight Commission
Report of Accomplishments: Fiscal Year 2024-25
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary
2. Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2024–25
Includes the Commission’s mission, values, and five key objectives.
3. Big-Picture and Key Accomplishments
Highlights the Commission’s major milestones and impact.
4. Detailed Status Updates on FY 2024–25 Objectives
Comprehensive reporting on each key objective, including monthly updates and end-of- year status.
5. Attachments
Includes the Commission attendance report, outreach materials, adopted policy recommendations, and other supporting documents.
Section 1: Executive Summary
The Community Police Oversight Commission (CPOC) of Pasadena advanced its mission through five key objectives in Fiscal Year 2024–25. Working in collaboration with the Independent Police Auditor (IPA), the Commission achieved measurable progress in policy development, oversight, and community engagement.
In addition to its routine oversight activities, the Commission received several informational presentations, including:
• Suburban policing practices and data provided by the Los Angeles County Commission on Human Relations
• The Chief of Police’s annual report
• An overview of the Pasadena Police Department (PPD) Officer Wellness Programs
• A briefing on the Pasadena Police Officers Association Commissioners also attended the 2024 Annual Conference of the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE), and the Chair of the Commission participated in the 4th Annual Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement Conference. 2 of 137
2 Objective 1: Gain community input on pretext stops and make formal recommendations to the PPD on the continued use of pretext stops in Pasadena • S eptember 2024 – R eleased a public survey to gather community and officer input on pretextual traffic stops.
• January 2025 – Completed and published the survey analysis on CPOC’s website.
• May 2025 – Created and adopted three actionable policy recommendations related to traffic stops.
Objective 2: M onitor PPD’s technology purchases to ensure effective policies are in place to protect privacy and the community
• A ugust 2024 – Received a presentation from PPD on the Mobile Observation Tower.
• September 2024 – Secured an agreement from PPD Chief Harris to remove the undefined term “exigent” from the Mobile Observation Tower Policy. • December 2025 – Received a presentation from PPD regarding Shotspotter and voted to support the renewal of the contract.
• February 2025 – Received a year -end presentation from PPD on the Cell Site Simulator.
Objective 3: Review and make recommendations on PPD’s complaint handling process and consider how CPOC can better take in and follow up on complaints. • D ecember 2024 – Approved a Community-Police Mediation Policy that was developed in partnership with IPA Dr. Richard Rosenthal and PPD. • June 2025 – Approved Rules and Regulations for the handling of community complaints sent directly to the CPOC or IPA.
Objective 4 : Engage with community groups at their events and partner with PPD at other community events to ensure that all members of the community understand the purpose and priorities of the CPOC.
• M arch/April 2025 – Created and distributed flyers to promote the IPA “meet and greet” events, with fewer than a quorum of commissioners attending the events. • May 2025 – Created a general informational flyer about the CPOC’s mission and services.
• June 2025 – Commissioners and staff participated in the Annual NAACP Juneteenth Celebration.
• Various dates – Engaged with community members at Coffee with a Cop events.
Objective 5: S upport the selection and onboarding of a new Independent Police Auditor (IPA)
3 of 137
3 • November 2025 – Evaluated and interviewed 12 applicants to serve as the CPOC IPA. Submitted a letter of recommendation to the City Council IPA Selection Ad Hoc Committee.
• February 2025 – Met with incoming IPA, Teresa Magula, to discuss the Commission’s priorities and ways to introduce her to the community. • March/April 2025 – Assisted in the planning of community “meet and greet” events for the community to meet the new IPA.
Section 2: Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2024-25
Mission
According to Chapter 2.60 of the Pasadena Municipal Code, the purpose of the Community Police Oversight Commission is to enhance, develop, and strengthen community-police relations and review and make recommendations regarding the ongoing operations of the police department to the chief of police, city manager, and/or city council.
CPOC Values and Focus/Lens
The Community Police Oversight Commission (CPOC) is committed to making impactful change through its focused but ambitious work plan, in partnership with the City’s Independent Police Auditor (IPA). The key objectives listed below are the goals the Commission will be working towards achieving this year. All work and recommendations from the CPOC will always be guided by the following:
• The prioritization of mental health resources for community members and police officers.
• An acknowledgment of the cost of trauma and the need for resources for victims.
• A commitment to creating policies, trainings, and cultures that eliminate the impacts of bias; and
• The importance of utilizing data and performance review mechanisms to understand how the department reports and tracks key information and uses it as a learning mechanism.
FY 2024-2025 Key Objectives
The following are the five key objectives for the CPOC in FY 2024-25, with more details for each of them noted on the following pages of this work plan.
1. Gain community input on pretext stops and make formal recommendations to the PPD on continued use of pretext stops in Pasadena (Pretext Stops)
4 of 137
4 2. Monitor PPD’s technology purchases to ensure effective policies are in place to protect privacy and the community (Technology Policies)
3. Review and make recommendations on PPD’s complaint handling process and consider how CPOC can better take in and follow up on complaints (Complaint Handling)
4. Engage with community groups at their events and partner with PPD at other community events to ensure that all members of the community understand the purpose and priorities of the CPOC (Community Education)
5. Support the selection and onboarding of new IPA (IPA Selection and Onboarding)
Long-Term Objectives and Goals
The Community Police Oversight Commission acknowledges that the key objectives for FY 2024-25 are critical items to focus on, but not the only goals of the Commission.
Rather, they are the foundational items that need to be completed to ensure the Commission can turn its attention to other goals in the coming years, knowing that the practice of police oversight is long-term and continual. Some of the current long-term goals of the CPOC are:
• Enhancing the mental health services offered to both officers and the community, with a key focus on trauma-informed care.
• Understanding PPD’s data and performance review mechanisms to understand how the department reports and tracks key information and uses it as a learning mechanism.
• Monitoring and making recommendations on PPD’s training program through in- person observation and data reporting.
Section 3: Big-Picture and Key Accomplishments
The CPOC, in partnership with Independent Police Auditors (IPAs) Dr. Richard Rosenthal and Teresa Magula, continued to advance its mission of civilian oversight through concrete policy development, expanded community outreach, and enhanced transparency in Pasadena policing. In addition to its regular oversight work, the Commission received several informational presentations, including one from the L.A.
County Commission on Human Relations on suburban policing practices and data, the Chief of Police’s annual report, an overview of the Department’s Officer Wellness Programs, and a presentation on the Pasadena Police Officers Association. Through the focused efforts of its Ad Hoc Committees, the CPOC:
5 of 137
5 • Collaborated with IPA Dr. Rosenthal to conduct a community and officer survey on pretextual traffic stops (Attachment B), with analysis provided by Dr. Joseph De Angelis of the University of Idaho (Attachment C). The results were published and used to develop three actionable policy recommendations related to traffic stops, which the CPOC approved, submitted to PPD, and added to the public IPA Recommendations Tracker (Attachment D).
• Took a proactive role in conducting technology policy oversight. The Commission received presentations on the Mobile Observation Tower, ShotSpotter, and the Cell Site Simulator, and influenced a key policy revision by prompting PPD to remove the undefined term “exigent” from the Mobile Observation Tower policy.
The Ad Hoc Committee also worked extensively with IPAs Rosenthal and Magula to develop a framework for Rules and Regulations governing the review of policies related to PPD technology purchases—a process that will continue into FY 2025–26.
• Made significant strides in formalizing the complaint handling and mediation process, including December 2024 approval of a new community-police mediation policy (Attachment E) that was developed in partnership with PPD. In partnership with the IPAs, the Ad Hoc Committee also finalized Rules and Regulations (Attachment F) governing the handling of police misconduct complaints submitted to the CPOC or the IPA. These were formally adopted in June 2025 and forwarded to the City Council for consideration. • Formally adopted Rules and Regulations to ensure at least a twice-a-year meeting between CPOC and PPD leadership to ensure open communication and build rapport and collaboration. (Attachment G). These were formally adopted in June 2025 and forwarded to the City Council for consideration. • Strengthened community education and outreach, collaborating on the creation of a CPOC flyer (Attachment H) to raise awareness about the Commission and increase attendance at meetings. Commission members also attended public events, including “Coffee with a Cop” and the NAACP Juneteenth Celebration, to engage community members and increase awareness of the Commission. • Played a pivotal role in the selection and onboarding of the new Independent Police Auditor, reviewing proposals, conducting interviews, and making a recommendation that led to the selection of Teresa Magula of the OIR Group in December 2024. The Ad Hoc Committee ensured a smooth transition by coordinating with Dr. Rosenthal and IPA Magula, and by organizing two community meet-and-greet events, one of which was specifically for Spanish- speaking residents. See the event flyers, included in Attachment I. The Commission created an internal memo outlining the selection process to be used as a reference for future IPA selection processes.
These efforts reflect the CPOC’s growing capacity and credibility as a civilian oversight body and demonstrate a continued commitment to improving police accountability, transparency, and community trust in Pasadena.
6 of 137
6 Section 4: Detailed Status Updates on FY 2024–25 Objectives
Objective 1 – Gain community input on pretext stops and make formal recommendations to the PPD on the continued use of pretext stops in Pasadena (Pretext Stops)
Ad Hoc Committee Members: Chair Jones, Commissioners Abernethy, Ibáñez, and Serrano
Action Items
• Having completed the methodology, literature review, and community forums in FY 2024-25, work with IPA to complete the community survey and focus groups to gain a better understanding of community thoughts related to the use of pretext stops – COMPLETED
• Create a comprehensive report on findings from the full methodology –
COMPLETED
• Make a formal recommendation to PPD related to their use of pretext stops in Pasadena – COMPLETED
End-of-Year Status
In collaboration with IPA Dr. Richard Rosenthal, the CPOC conducted a survey of community members and officers regarding attitudes related to pretextual traffic stops.
An analysis of the results, conducted by Dr. Joseph De Angelis, an Associate Professor of Criminology and Sociology at the University of Idaho, was released to the public. The Ad Hoc Committee worked with IPA Teresa Magula to develop three actionable recommendations related to traffic stops, which were approved by the Commission, provided to PPD, and added to the IPA recommendations tracker.
Monthly Work Plan Updates
September 2024
• The CPOC community Pretext Stop Survey flyer was created in English and Spanish, with a QR code and an active link to ensure easy access to complete the survey
• The Pretext Stop flyer was posted on the CPOC webpage, and all social media platforms, Community Centers, Libraries, and PIO issued a press release to the Community
• IPA Rosenthal monitored the surveys issued to the PD
7 of 137
7 October 2024
• The ad hoc committee discussed different strategies to get the community to complete the Pretextual Stops online survey via regular announcements at Commission meetings, social media posts, and handing out paper flyers at various events. The staff provided updated flyers for posting online by the Commission and continued to supply paper flyers for distribution.
November 2024
• The Pretext Stop survey, which launched in September, was open throughout November. IPA Dr. Rosenthal reported that 144 responses had been received, including one response in Spanish.
December 2024
• The Community Pretext Stop survey ended on December 1 st and was removed
from the CPOC website to allow IPA Dr. Rosenthal time to review the data and analyze it.
• IPA Dr. Rosenthal worked on a report on the Community Pretext Stop Survey to be presented at the January 2025 CPOC meeting.
January 2025
• The ad hoc committee received the survey data report on the Pretext Stop that was completed by Dr. Joseph De Angelis.
• The ad hoc committee scheduled a meeting to discuss the Pretext Stop survey data report with new IPA Teresa Magula of the OIR Group.
February 2025
• The ad hoc committee provided IPA Teresa Magula with an update on the Pretext Stop Survey and the length of time it was posted to the community on the CPOC website.
• IPA Teresa Magula reviewed the Pretext Stop Survey report from Dr. Joseph De Angelis and began working on creating a memo summarizing key information from the report.
March 2025
• The ad hoc committee met with IPA Teresa Magula regarding the report from Dr.
Joseph De Angelis, her summary of the report, and items to include in the IPA report.
April 2025
8 of 137
8 • The ad hoc committee met with IPA Magula and discussed specific policy recommendations related to traffic stops that were based on the objectives stated by commission members during the April 10 CPOC meeting.
May 2025
• The ad hoc committee's recommendation on traffic stops, formulated with assistance from IPA Magula was adopted by the full CPOC at the May 8, 2025 meeting.
• A letter was sent to the Chief of Police memorializing the CPOC’s adopted recommendations.
June 2025
• Staff and the IPA added the traffic stop recommendations to the IPA recommendations tracker.
Objective 2 – Monitor PPD’s technology purchases to ensure effective policies are in place to protect privacy and the community (Technology Policies)
Ad Hoc Committee Members: Vice Chair Argento, Commissioners Lurvey, Verrette, Bedjakian, and Annang
Action Items
• Building on the work of last year, monitor all new technology purchases – both upgrades and new items – by the PPD – ONGOING
• Work with PPD to ensure that all new technologies have an associated policy that prioritizes privacy and community safety – ONGOING
End-of-Year Status
The Ad Hoc Committee actively engaged with the IPA and PPD on proposed technology purchases and policies. Through the work of the Ad Hoc, the CPOC received presentations from PPD on new technologies, including the Mobile Observation Tower and ShotSpotter, as well as an update on the Cell Site Simulator.
The Commission’s discussions prompted PPD to remove the term “exigent” from its Mobile Observation Tower policy due to its undefined and ambiguous nature. The Ad Hoc committee worked closely with IPAs Dr. Rosenthal and Teresa Magula to develop a framework for Rules and Regulations regarding the review of PPD policies related to new technology acquisitions. This work will continue into Fiscal Year 2025–26 as the Rules and Regulations are further refined.
9 of 137
9 Monthly Work Plan Updates
August 2024
• PPD requested to provide a presentation at the August regular meeting regarding the Mobile Observation Tower. PPD subsequently presented at the August 2024 meeting. The Commission requested PPD to draft a policy before purchasing the Mobile Observation Tower.
September 2024
• At the September meeting, the Commission proposed a change to the PPD Mobile Observation Tower policy, but the motion didn't pass because the CPOC Rules and Regulations require a vote of at least six members. PPD Chief Harris agreed to modify the policy by removing the word "exigent" from the document.
October 2024
• T he ad hoc committee discussed getting an update from PD on the cell site tower simulator and license plate reader devices at the Rose Bowl. Commissioners discussed the need for PD to have a policy for officers to activate body-worn cameras from the moment they encounter a person. Commissioners agreed on the need to establish a formal process for PD to present a policy to CPOC for any new technology or equipment they intend to purchase.
November 2024
• PD made the language change to the Mobile Observation Tower policy per CPOC request during the monthly meeting in September. PD went before the Council for approval on September 23, 2024
• City Staff sent an email to PD command staff for an update on technology equipment regarding the body -worn camera, Cell Site Simulator, License Plate Readers, and ShotSpotter
• PD command staff will provide a year -end report on the Cell Site Simulator to CPOC in January 2025.
• PD command staff will attend the CPOC December meeting to discuss the renewal contract of the ShotSpotter.
December 2024
• The ad hoc committee and IPA Dr. Rosenthal discussed the new IPA creating a best practice policy protocol for when PD is considering purchasing new technology equipment
• The ad hoc committee discussed PD attending the CPOC January 2025 meeting to give a presentation on the Cell Site Simulator
10 of 137
10 January 2025
• Staff worked with the ad hoc committee to coordinate meeting dates to discuss the annual work plan with the new IPA.
February 2025
• The ad hoc committee met with IPA Teresa Magula to discuss the proposed amended draft policy regarding the Rules and Regulations protocol for new PD technology equipment purchases, which the committee had been developing with Dr. Rosenthal prior to his retirement in January 2025.
• IPA Magula provided the ad hoc committee with additional policy guidance and a draft workflow to support the review of the proposed policy on new PD technology equipment purchases.
• IPA Magula informed the ad hoc committee that she will share a draft of the proposed policy with PD command staff for their review and feedback.
March 2025
• The ad hoc committee met with IPA Teresa Magula to discuss the draft policy and addressed outstanding questions regarding the inclusion of potential future technologies in the policy.
April 2025
• The ad hoc committee and IPA Magula discussed feedback provided by PD regarding the draft rules and possible edits to the language to clarify the rules’ intent and function.
May 2025
• The ad hoc committee met to consider the proposed rules, which were updated by the IPA, outside counsel, and City Attorney’s Office to clarify the purpose and process and reflect the scope of the CPOC’s authority. All parties are continuing to work together to identify an appropriate and effective regulation.
June 2025
• IPA and staff scheduled a meeting with PD leadership to determine an effective workflow, in accordance with the PMC, for CPOC’s review of new technology policies.
Objective 3 – Review and make recommendations on PPD’s complaint handling process and consider how CPOC can better take in and follow up on complaints (Complaint Handling)
11 of 137
11 Ad Hoc Committee Members: Chair Jones, Commissioners Abernethy, Matthews, and Serrano
Action Items
• In collaboration with IPA, work with PPD to implement recommendations for IPA’s July 2024 assessment on the complaint handling process – ONGOING • Make further recommendations as the CPOC sees necessary related to internal affairs and the complaint-handling process – ONGOING
• Develop a program and process that will allow the CPOC to directly receive community complaints related to PPD that includes a mechanism for follow-up and report-outs to prioritize transparency, timeliness, and accountability –
COMPLETED
End-of-Year Status
The Ad Hoc Committee made substantial progress in developing policies for a community-police mediation program and a formal complaint handling process. Working closely with IPA, Dr. Rosenthal, and PPD, the committee drafted a mediation program policy, which was approved by the CPOC at its December 2024 meeting. To support the successful implementation of the policy, staff began consulting with other jurisdictions that operate similar programs. The Ad Hoc Committee also collaborated with IPAs Dr.
Rosenthal and, later, Teresa Magula to develop Rules and Regulations governing the handling of police misconduct complaints submitted to the CPOC or the IPA. These efforts culminated in the CPOC’s adoption of the new Rules and Regulations at its June 2025 meeting, with a recommendation submitted to the City Council for final consideration.
Monthly Work Plan Updates
September 2024
• Staff contacted the ad hoc committee to coordinate meeting dates to discuss the annual work plan.
October 2024
• The ad hoc discussed the draft community-police mediation policy that was created by the IPA Rosenthal in collaboration with PPD. • CPOC and IPA discussed the creation of a budget policy to give to the City Attorney regarding funding for FY 2026. The budget document will detail the cost of a person to conduct the complaint mediation program. There is currently no funding available for a person to conduct a complaint mediation.
November 2024
12 of 137
12 • The ad hoc committee worked with IPA Dr. Rosenthal on Rules and Regulations to propose a recommendation to the City Council for community members or an organization for a formal process for handling complaints • The ad hoc committee worked with IPA, Dr. Rosenthal, and PD on a policy for a Community Mediation Program. The Ad Hoc Committee and IPA Rosenthal discussed the need to speak with the City Attorney/Administration office before selecting a mediator for the Community Mediation Program regarding a budget that is needed for a contract
December 2024
• The Ad Hoc Committee and IPA Dr. Rosenthal developed a draft matrix for a formal complaint process, and IPA Dr. Rosenthal shared that he will ask the PD Deputy Chief to review the draft matrix
• The ad hoc committee and IPA Dr. Rosenthal discussed the new onboarding IPA to continue doing the work on the complaint draft matrix to finalize a formal process January 2025
• Staff contacted with the Ad Hoc Committee to coordinate meeting dates to discuss the annual work plan with the new IPA.
February 2025
• The new IPA, Teresa Magula, reviewed the ad hoc committee’s proposed amendment to the Rules and Regulations protocol for the PD complaint policy, which the committee had been developing with Dr. Rosenthal prior to his retirement in January 2025.
March 2025
• The ad hoc committee met with IPA Magula to discuss the status of the rules and the potential impacts should PD transition to a primarily online complaint intake process.
April 2025
• Staff and IPA Magula met with administrators of the community -police mediation program in the City of Los Angeles to gain insight into program operations and best practices.
May 2025
• Staff and IPA Magula met with administrators of the community-police mediation programs in Portland and New Orleans to gain insight into program operations and best practices.
June 2025
13 of 137
13 • The Commission adopted the Rules and Regulations regarding the handling of complaints at the June 12, 2025 meeting. Staff prepared an agenda report for the Rules and Regulations to be considered by the City Council.
Objective 4 – Engage with community groups at their events and partner with PPD at other community events to ensure that all members of the community understand the purpose and priorities of the CPOC (Community Education)
Ad Hoc Committee Members: Chair Jones, Commissioners Annang, Bedjakian, and Matthews
Action Items
• Partner with PPD to have a CPOC presence at PPD events, and create joint community events to better engage the community in the work of the CPOC –
ONGOING
• Prioritize commissioner attendance at all types of community events –
ONGOING
• Meet with community groups directly to engage them in the work the CPOC is doing and form partnerships – ONGOING
End-of-Year Status
The Ad Hoc Committee made meaningful strides in enhancing community engagement and raising public awareness about the CPOC’s work. In collaboration with IPA Dr.
Rosenthal and later IPA Teresa Magula, the committee led efforts to create and distribute informational flyers to share basic details about the Commission and promote attendance at monthly meetings. The committee also initiated outreach strategies, including press releases, personal invitations, and phone calls, to encourage community participation in meet-and-greet events with the new IPA. Flyers were distributed at events such as "Coffee with a Cop" and the NAACP’s Juneteenth Celebration, and staff began conducting outreach to local nonprofits and city departments to explore additional opportunities for community engagement.
Monthly Work Plan Updates
September 2024
• City staff contacted the ad hoc committee to coordinate meeting dates to discuss the annual work plan.
14 of 137
14 October 2024
• The ad hoc committee and IPA Rosenthal met and discussed creating a flyer to distribute at community events and monthly CPOC meetings to give basic information about the CPOC. Members also gave insights into the events they attended and discussed the possibility of hosting events within the city to engage with the community.
November 2024
• Staff worked with the city printshop on creating a flyer with a QR code for CPOC to pass out when engaging with community members or groups on the Commission’s work, and to notify them of upcoming monthly meetings December 2024
• City staff contacted the ad hoc committee to coordinate meeting dates to discuss the annual work plan.
January 2025
• City staff contacted the ad hoc committee to coordinate meeting dates to discuss the annual work plan.
February 2025
• The ad hoc committee discussed the distribution of CPOC flyers for the IPA meet- and-greet scheduled for March and April.
• The ad hoc committee directed the administrative staff to do a press release for the IPA meet-and-greet event.
• The ad hoc committee directed administrative staff to send personal email invites and make calls to the various community organizations to invite them to the IPA meet-and-greet event.
March 2025
• A press release and flyer for the March IPA meet-and-greet were created and distributed by staff. Additionally, staff sent email invitations and made calls to various community organizations regarding the event.
April 2025
• Flyers for the IPA Meet and Greet Event for the Spanish-speaking community were distributed at a Coffee with a Cop event at Vallarta Market, which was attended by Chair Jones, IPA Magula, and staff.
May 2025
15 of 137
15 • Staff worked on connecting with community non-profits and organizations that may be interested in hosting the IPA and/or the Ad Hoc members at community meetings or events.
• Staff inquired with the City’s Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department regarding the CPOC’s participation in upcoming City-sponsored community events.
June 2025
• In collaboration with the Ad Hoc Committee, staff created a general informational flyer about the Commission. Staff worked with a City contractor to have the flyer translated, with the intent of providing one side in Spanish. • Commissioners and staff attended the Juneteenth Celebration, where they engaged with community members and provided the CPOC flyers.
Objective 5 – Support the selection and onboarding of new IPA (IPA Selection and Onboarding)
Ad Hoc Committee Members: Chair Jones, Vice Chair Argento, Commissioners Ibáñez, and Verrette
Action Items
• With IPA Rosenthal’s departure expected in December 2024, support the City Council in the recruitment and selection process of the next IPA – COMPLETED • Once a new IPA is selected, work with the new IPA to ensure a deep understanding of Pasadena and our work to date – COMPLETED • Together with the new IPA, set a work plan for the 2025 calendar year –
COMPLETED
• Prepare an internal memo summarizing the IPA selection process to serve as a reference for future selections – COMPLETED
End-of-Year Status
The Ad Hoc Committee played a critical role in the selection and onboarding of the new Independent Police Auditor (IPA). Beginning in September 2024, the committee worked with IPA Dr. Rosenthal to review strategies for the IPA recruitment process. The committee advocated for their continued involvement in candidate evaluation, which was consistent with their role in the 2022 IPA selection process. They reviewed submitted proposals, conducted interviews, and submitted a recommendation, which ultimately led to the selection of Teresa Magula of the OIR Group as the new IPA in December 2024. The committee supported a smooth transition by meeting with IPA Magula and organizing two community meet-and-greet events to introduce the new IPA, 16 of 137
16 including one specifically for Spanish-speaking residents. Per the Chair's direction, staff and outside counsel are working on a memo that documents the process the ad hoc committee followed to ensure that future ad hoc committees have a clear roadmap for participating in future IPA selection processes.
Work Plan Updates
September 2024
• The ad hoc committee met along with IPA Rosenthal to discuss strategies, procedures, and the status of the request for proposals (RFP) for the new IPA.
The ad hoc committee expressed its desire to be a part of the interview and selection process for the new IPA, as a prior ad hoc committee did in 2022. • The IPA RFP was posted on NACOLE, Office of the Inspector General, Daily Journal, and other Judges and Arbitrators Association websites to ensure that proposals received are from qualified firms or individuals.
October 2024
• The ad hoc committee discussed the process for evaluating the submitted RFP proposals, including their previous involvement during the last recruitment cycle, which included a recommendation to the City Council regarding the best IPA candidate.
• Ad hoc committee/CPOC expressed its preference for outgoing IPA Dr.
Rosenthal to have an involvement in the evaluation process in reviewing the proposals and assisting in making a recommendation regarding the top selections.
November 2024
• The ad hoc committee received the 12 submitted proposals and evaluation scores for interviews for the IPA contracted position
• The ad hoc committee formulated standard interview questions and conducted interviews with Dr. Rosenthal present.
• The ad hoc committee debriefed with Dr. Rosenthal regarding the interviews. Dr.
Rosenthal shared his expertise on the candidates and offered professional feedback.
• In conjunction with staff, the ad hoc committee sent a letter to the City Council’s IPA Selection Ad Hoc Committee providing its top three recommended IPA candidates.
December 2024
17 of 137
17 • City Council’s IPA Selection Ad Hoc Committee recommendation to the City Council for the selection of Teresa Magula, of the OIR Group was approved on December 16th.
January 2025
• The committee discussed ensuring that Teresa Magula of the OIR Group receives all necessary documents to support the continuation of CPOC’s work. • The ad hoc committee expressed interest in organizing a community meet-and- greet event to introduce the new IPA, Teresa Magula, of the OIR Group.
February 2025
• The ad hoc committee directed administrative staff to schedule an IPA Community meet-and-greet for March 26
th at Robinson Park Recreation Center
and April 1st in Spanish at Villa Parke Community Center
March 2025
• The ad hoc committee members Jones, Argento, and Ibáñez attended the IPA Community Meet-and-Greet on March 26th. A Meet-and-Greet event for the Spanish-speaking community will be held at Villa Parke Community Center on May 6th.
April 2025
• A press release for the IPA Meet-and-Greet Event for the Spanish-speaking community at Villa Parke Community Center on May 6
th was distributed and
posted by the City’s Public Information Officer. Staff distributed flyers to the City’s libraries and community centers.
May 2025
• IPA Meet-and-Greet Event for the Spanish-speaking community was held at Villa Parke Community Center on May 6
th
June 2025
• The Chair consulted with outside counsel and staff on developing an internal memo documenting the process the ad hoc committee followed to interview and evaluate IPA applicants and make a recommendation to the City Council Ad Hoc Selection Committee. The memo will serve as a reference and roadmap for future IPA selection processes.
18 of 137
18 Section 5: Attachments
A. Meeting Attendance Record
B. Pretext Traffic Stop Survey Flyer
C. Pretext Traffic Stop Survey Analysis
D. Traffic Stop Policy Recommendations
E. Community-Police Mediation Policy
F. Handling of Community Complaints Rules and Regulations G. Biannual Meeting of CPOC and PPD Leadership Rules and Regulations H. CPOC Informational Flyer
I. Independent Police Auditor “Meet-and-Greet” Event Flyers
19 of 137
Attachment A -
Meeting Attendance Record
20 of 137
Community Police Oversight Commission
July 2024 - June 2025
MEETING ATTENDANCE RECORD
MEMBERS
07/11/24 SPECIAL08/01/24 REGUL
AR
09/12/24 REG
ULAR
10/10/24 SPECIA
L
11/14/24 SPECIAL12/12/24
SPECIAL01/09/25 CANCE
LED
02/13/25
REGUL
AR
03/13/25 CANCE
LED
04/10/25 REG
ULAR
05/08/25 REGUL
AR
06/12/25 REG
ULAR TOTAL
MEETINGS
ATTENDED
ATTENDANCE
RECORD
PERCENTAGE
Alexis Abernethy (Comm.
Based Org.) P P P P P P XX P XX P P P 10 100%
Florence Annang (Comm.
Based Org.) P P P P P P XX P XX P P P 10 100%
Phillip Argento
(Mayor) P P P P P P XX P XX P P P 10 100%
Teddy Bedjakian
(District 4) P P A A A P XX A XX P P A 5 50%
Selina Ho
(District 2) P P P 3 100%
Raúl Ibáñez
(District 5) P P P P P P XX A XX P P P 9 90%
Esprit Loren Jones
(District 1) P P P P P P XX P XX P P P 10 100%
Lawrence Lurvey
(District 7) P P A P P A XX P XX P A P 7 70%
Donald Matthews
(District 3) P P P P P P XX P XX P A P 9 90%
Juliana Serrano
(Comm. Based Org.) P P P P P P XX P XX P P P 10 100%
Paul Vernon
(District 2) P A P P 3 75%
Paula Verrette
(District 6) P P A P P P XX P XX A P P 8 80%
LEGEND Total Meetings Held 10
P - PRESENT
A - EXCUSED ABSENCE
U - UNEXCUSED ABSENCE
XX - CANCELED MEETING
NQ - NO QUORUM
No Longer Commissioner
Not A Commissioner
21 of 137
Attachment B -
Pretext Traffic Stop Survey Flyer
22 of 137
COMMUNITY POLICE OVERSIGHT COMMISSION PRESENTS
Pretextual Stops ONLINE SURVEY
A PRETEXTUAL TRAFFIC STOP
is when a police officer pulls
someone over for a minor
traffic or equipment violation
to try and find evidence of
another more serious crime.
The Community Police Oversight
Commission (CPOC) invites community
members to provide their thoughts and
experiences related to pretextual traffic
stops through an online survey.
For more information or to request a disability-related accommodation:
Call (626) 744-4141 or visit CityOfPasadena.net/Commissions/Community-Police-Oversight-Commission
TAKE THE
ONLINE SURVEY
The Online Survey can be found
online and will remain open to
the public until further notice:
Research.net/R/CPOCCommunityPretextStop
23 of 137
Attachment C -
Pretext Traffic Stop Survey
Analysis
24 of 137
Community Member and Police Officer Aƫtudes Toward Pretextual Traffic Stops in Pasadena
Joseph De Angelis, Ph.D.
January 14, 2025
25 of 137
Executive Summary
2 ExecuƟve Summary
This report presents the results of a project that employs electronic surveys to explore aƫtudes toward pretextual traffic stops among Pasadena community members and police officers. In this study, pretextual traffic stops are defined as traffic stops where an officer pulls a vehicle over for a minor traffic violaƟon in order to invesƟgate another suspected crime that is not related to the observed traffic violaƟon.1 The project was sponsored by Pasadena’s Independent Police Auditor (IPA) with the goal of collecƟng survey data to support the Community Police Oversight Commission’s (CPOC’s) work in examining community and officer aƫtudes toward the use of pretextual traffic stops in Pasadena. The officer surveys were administered electronically to a census of Pasadena police officers (n=46) between August 7, 2025 and October 17, 2025. An electronic survey was administered to the community (n=161) via an open survey solicitaƟon link posted to the CPOC’s website between October 8, 2025, and December 5, 2025. Below is a brief summary of some of the key survey results. We encourage readers to review the detailed results presented in the body of the report.
COMMUNITY EXPERIENCES WITH TRAFFIC STOPS
The first substanƟve secƟon of the community survey asked community members to report on whether they had contact with the PPD or experienced a traffic stop iniƟated by a PPD officer.
Altogether, 83% of the respondents had previous contact with a PPD officer (63% in the previous three years). However, only 40% had experienced a PPD iniƟated traffic stop. Twenty percent of the respondents indicated that they believed that they experienced a pretextual traffic stop. Overall, community aƫtudes toward PPD officers were somewhat divided, but a plurality of the respondents (~40-50%) strongly agreed or agreed with statements that PPD officers are fair, respecƞul, trustworthy, and listen to people before making important decisions.
A smaller but meaningful proporƟon (~24-30%) disagreed or strongly disagreed with the same statements. When asked about their most recent traffic stop with a PPD officer, roughly two- thirds of the respondents (~58-69%) either strongly agreed or agreed with statements that the officer conducting the traffic stop was respectful, fair, listened to what they had to say, was professional, and explained why they were pulled over. However, approximately 22-25% strongly disagreed or disagreed with the same statements.
OFFICER EXPERIENCES WITH PRETEXTUALSTOPS
Most of the officers who responded to the survey were not heavily involved in conducƟng traffic stops in their current posiƟon, with 61% reporƟng that they conducted traffic stops only rarely
1 See Whren v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 1769, 1777 (1996) 26 of 137
Executive Summary
3 or never. The respondents were less likely to report using pretextual traffic stops, with 74% reporƟng they employed them rarely or never. When asked why they might use pretextual traffic stops, they reported that they might use them to proacƟvely invesƟgate suspicions relaƟng to criminal behavior, because it is a legal and useful tool for invesƟgaƟng and prevenƟng crime.
OFFICER VIEWS ON THE BENEFITS AND DRAWBACK OF PRETEXTUAL STOPS One of the core substanƟve secƟons on the officer survey asked respondents whether they believed that pretextual stops have any benefits or drawbacks. Some of the most common benefits idenƟfied in relaƟon to pretextual stops were that they:
Are effecƟve in prevenƟng crime and enhancing public safety through the seizure of illegal drugs, narcoƟcs, and violent criminals
Allow officers to be proacƟve rather than reacƟve in their work Are a legal tool which allows them to invesƟgate suspicious acƟvity Can be used to help protect confidenƟal informants
In relaƟon to drawbacks, many officers reported that there were no real problems with pretextual stops. However, several officers noted that the public oŌen does not understand pretextual stops and may see their use as a form of harassment. Pretextual stops may also damage the public’s percepƟons of the police and can disproporƟonately affect minority communiƟes.
COMMUNITY PERCEIVED BENEFITS AND DRAWBACKS OF PRETEXTUAL STOPS The community survey included two open-ended quesƟons that asked respondents to describe the benefits and problems associated with pretextual stops. One group of community respondents indicated that there were no benefits to the use of pretextual stops. A second group of respondents adopted the middle-ground and reported qualified support for pretextual stops in certain situaƟons. A third group of respondents were strongly supporƟve of pretextual stops and indicated that they are a criƟcally important tool for law enforcement. Community members who were supporƟve of pretextual stops described their benefits in similar ways to PPD officers, as legal invesƟgaƟve tools that can be used proacƟvely to prevent crime and protect the public.
The community members who were opposed the use of pretextual stops idenƟfied several potenƟal drawbacks, including the potenƟal for profiling, biased policing, and that the burdens imposed by pretextual stops tends to fall disproporƟonately on people of color and other minority communiƟes. Community opponents of pretextual stops also reported that this type of traffic stop can escalate police-community conflicts, reduce public and officer safety, 27 of 137
Executive Summary
4 undermine trust in the police, and be ineffecƟve at reducing crime. Some opponents of pretextual stops also argued that these types of traffic stops can waste public resources and divert law enforcement aƩenƟon away from more serious and harmful forms of crime.
COMMUNITY AND OFFICER PERCEPTIONS OF BIAS IN PRETEXTUAL STOPS Both the community and officer surveys included an open-ended quesƟon that asked respondents to write about whether they perceived bias to be a problem in relaƟon to pretextual traffic stops. Community respondents who opposed pretextual traffic stops tended to report that they believed there is substanƟal racial and class bias in how pretextual traffic stops are used. However, community supporters of pretextual stops tended to report that there is no bias in how pretextual stops are used.
Officers overwhelmingly responded that bias is not an issue with pretextual traffic stops. Some officers argued that paƩerns that look like racial or class bias are actually caused by paƩerns in criminal acƟvity, or the high crime neighborhoods in which the officer is assigned to patrol. A small number of officers did note that bias is a part of human nature, but that the PPD officers do not act with intenƟonal bias and the department has tools and training to respond effecƟvely to the existence of bias.
COMPARING COMMUNITY AND OFFICER VIEWS ON REFORM
Both community members and officers were asked the following closed quesƟon: “How strongly do you support efforts to reform the use of pretextual stops in Pasadena?” It was clear that community members were much more supporƟve of reform than officers. Roughly 50% of community respondents indicated they strongly supported/supported reforming pretextual stops in Pasadena, while 35% were strongly opposed/opposed. In comparison, only 5% of the responding officers strongly supported/supported reform while 93% strongly opposed/opposed reform.
AŌer being asked about general support for reform, community members and officers were also asked about their support for specific types of pretext stop reforms that have been used in other jurisdicƟons. Almost all officers opposed prohibiƟng pretextual stops, eliminaƟng traffic stops for minor traffic offenses, and bans on searches during pretextual stops. Community members were fairly evenly split between support and opposiƟon on the same reforms.
However, support was higher among both community members and officers for a policy requiring officers to record why they were iniƟaƟng a traffic stop on their body cameras.
The full secƟon of this part of the report reviews community and officer suggesƟons for potenƟal pretextual traffic stop reforms in detail and which are too numerous to summarize here.
28 of 137
Executive Summary
5 IMPORTANT LIMITATIONS OF THE SURVEY
While these surveys provide useful informaƟon about the aƫtudes of the community members and officers who responded to the surveys, it is crucial to note that the project data has some important limitaƟons. First, probability sampling methods (e.g., a simple random sample) were not used to select the samples for either survey. Second, the sample size was small for both surveys. Finally, this project explores a controversial topic (i.e., pretext stops), which raises the possibility that some potenƟal respondents were unwilling to respond to the survey (called nonresponse bias). As a result, we cannot assume the aƫtudinal data reported here are representaƟve of the aƫtudes held by either the wider Pasadena community or populaƟon of officers who work for the Pasadena Police Department.
29 of 137
6 TABLE OF CONTENTS
7 16
20 24
34 38
49 51
54 SecƟon 1: Community Respondent Experiences with Traffic Stops SecƟon 2: Officer Experiences with Pretextual Stops
SecƟon 3: Officer Views on the Benefits/Drawbacks of Pretextual Stops SecƟon 4: Community Views on the Benefits/Drawbacks of Pretextual Stops SecƟon 5: Community and Officer PercepƟons of Bias in Pretextual Stops SecƟon 6: Comparing Community and Officer Views on Reform Appendix A: Survey Methodology
Appendix B: Community Demographics
Appendix C: UnformaƩed Community Survey Instrument—English Appendix E: UnformaƩed Community Survey Instrument—Spanish Appendix D: UnformaƩed Officer Survey Instrument
63 80
30 of 137
7 SECTION 1
COMMUNITY RESPONDENT EXPERIENCES
WITH TRAFFIC STOPS
31 of 137
COMMUNITY EXPERIENCES WITH TRAFFIC STOPS
8 SECTION 1
COMMUNITY RESPONDENT EXPERIENCES WITH TRAFFIC STOPS
This secƟon explores community member percepƟons and experiences relaƟng to traffic stops.
The goal of the secƟon is to capture some of the experiences respondents have had in relaƟon to both rouƟne traffic stops and pretextual traffic stops. In the first part of the survey, we used closed quesƟons to ask respondents to idenƟfy whether they had recent contact with a Pasadena Police officer, been the pulled over by a PPD officer, or believed they had been the subject of a pretextual stop. We also asked them about their aƫtudes toward the officer who pulled them over and toward the PPD, as a whole. In addiƟon to the closed quesƟons, we also used open-ended quesƟons to them to describe their most recent traffic stop experiences.
Contact with the Pasadena Police Department
The ini Ɵal por Ɵon of the survey
delivered to community members
included several items that asked
the respondents to indicate
whether they had contact with the
PPD or experienced a traffic stop
iniƟated by a PPD officer. Overall, a
substanƟal propor Ɵon of the
respondents had previous contact
with a PPD officer. Almost two-
thirds of the respondents had
contact with a PPD officer in the
prior three years, and another 23%
had contact with a PPD officer
beyond that three-year period.
Though many of the respondents
had contact with PPD officers, a
much smaller proporƟon of the
respondents had contact in the
form of a traffic stop. Only one in five respondents indicated that they had been pulled over by a PPD officer in the previous three years. Just under sixty percent of the respondents reported no recent traffic stop experiences with the Pasadena Police Department.
Table 1: Have you had any contact with a member of the
Pasadena Police Department recently?
Community Response % n
Yes, in the last three years 63% 100
Yes, but it has been more than three years 20% 31
No 16% 25
Not sure 2% 3
Respondent n 100% 159
Table 2: Have you been pulled over by the Pasadena Police Department recently?
Community Response % n
Yes, in the last three years 18% 29
Yes, but it has been more than three years 22% 34
No 59% 93
Not sure 1% 1
Respondent n 100% 159
32 of 137
COMMUNITY EXPERIENCES WITH TRAFFIC STOPS
9 Respondents who reported that they
had experienced a PPD traffic stop
were also asked approximately how
many Ɵmes they had been pulled over
in the previous three years. The
majority of those respondents
indicated that they had only
experienced one traffic stop. A li Ʃle
more than twenty percent reported 2-
3 stops, and eight percent reported 4-
5 stops.
The survey also asked respondents to
report whether they have
experienced a pretextual traffic stop
with a PPD officer. In this study,
pretextual traffic stops are defined as
traffic stops where an officer pulls a
vehicle over for a minor traffic
violaƟon in order to inves Ɵgate
another suspected crime that is not
related to the observed traffic
violaƟon. Only a rela Ɵvely small
proporƟon of the respondents (~20%)
believed that they had been subject to
a pretextual traffic stop in the previous
three years.
Since public aƫtudes toward police
can be influenced vicariously through
the experiences of family and friends,
the survey also asked respondents to indicate whether any of their family or close friends had experienced a PPD traffic stop recently. A slightly larger propor Ɵon reported that they had a family member or close friend pulled over by the PPD in the previous three years.
Table 3: If you have been pulled over, approximately how many times have you been pulled over by a Pasadena
Police Officer in the last three years?
Community Response % n
1 time 69% 36
2-3 times 23% 12
4-5 times 8% 4
6 or more times 0% 0
Respondent n 100% 52
Table 4: Do you believe that you have experienced a
pretextual traffic stop with a Pasadena Police Officer?
Response % n
Yes, in the last three years 20% 30
No 73% 110
Not sure 7% 11
Total 100% 151
Table 5: Have you had a family member or close friend
tell you that they were recently pulled over by a
Pasadena Police officer?
Community Response % n
Yes, in the last three years 24% 37
Yes, but it has been more than three years 7% 11
No 64% 97
Not sure 5% 7
Total 100% 152
33 of 137
COMMUNITY EXPERIENCES WITH TRAFFIC STOPS
10 Attitudes Toward the Pasadena Police Department
The community survey included several quesƟons designed to measure aƫtudes toward the police, with a parƟcular focus on percepƟons of the fairness and professionalism of PPD officers, overall.
In addiƟon, community members were also asked about their aƫtudes toward the PPD officers who they encountered during traffic stops. More specifically, we asked the respondents to indicate the extent to which they believed Pasadena Police officers treat people fairly, with respect, are trustworthy, listen to people before making decisions, and try to do what is best for people. The reported aƫtudes toward PPD officers overall were somewhat divided, but a plurality (~40-50%) of the respondents strongly agreed or agreed with statements that PPD officers are fair, respecƞul, trustworthy, and listen to people before making important decisions. A smaller but sƟll meaningful proporƟon (~24-30%) disagreed or strongly disagreed with the same statements.
In order to measure attitudes toward the officers who conducted traffic stops, we asked the respondents who had experienced a PPD traffic stop to report on how they were treated during their traffic stop. Altogether, roughly two-thirds of the respondents (~58-69%) either strongly Table 6: Community Respondent Attitudes toward the Pasadena Police Department 2 Please rate your agreement with
the following statements:
Strongly
Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Disagree Total
Pasadena police officers treat
people fairly. 28% 18% 25% 17% 13% 100%
n 44 29 39 27 20 159
Pasadena police officers treat
people with respect. 25.6% 24.4% 25.6% 13.1% 11.3% 100% n 41 39 41 21 18 160
Pasadena police officers are
trustworthy. 25.3% 22.8% 22.2% 17.7% 12.0% 100%
n 40 36 35 28 19 158
Pasadena police officers listen to
people before making decisions. 20.8% 23.3% 27.0% 15.7% 13.2% 100% n 33 37 43 25 21 159
Pasadena police officers try to do
what is best for people. 28.3% 22.0% 25.8% 12.0% 12.0% 100% 45 35 41 19 19 159
2 Procedural justice measures are adapted from Mazerolle, Lorraine, Sarah Bennett, Jacqueline Davis, Elise Sargeant, and Matthew Manning. 2013. Procedural justice and police legitimacy: A systematic review of the research evidence. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9: 245–274. 34 of 137
COMMUNITY EXPERIENCES WITH TRAFFIC STOPS
11 agreed or agreed with statements that the officer conducting the traffic stop was respectful, fair, listened to what they had to say, was professional, and explained why they were pulled over.
However, approximately 22-25% strongly disagreed or disagreed with the same statements. So, there were clear differences in how respondents perceived officer conduct during their last traffic stop.
Table 7: Thinking about the last time you were pulled over by a Pasadena Police officer, please rate your agreement with the following statements.3
Statements
Strongly
Agree Agree Neutral Disagree
Strongly
Disagree Total
The police officer treated me
with respect. 31% 34% 10% 15% 10% 100%
n 18 20 6 9 6 59
The police officer was fair. 31% 27% 17% 14% 12% 100%
n 18 16 10 8 7 59
The police officer listened to
what I had to say. 27% 34% 15% 14% 10% 100%
n 16 20 9 8 6 59
The officer was professional. 29% 39% 10% 14% 8% 100%
n 17 23 6 8 5 59
The police officer explained
why I was pulled over. 28% 41% 9% 16% 7% 100%
n 16 24 5 9 4 58
3 Measures adapted from Mazerolle et al. (2013).
35 of 137
COMMUNITY EXPERIENCES WITH TRAFFIC STOPS
12 COMMUNITY RESPONDENT ATTITUDES TOWARD TRAFFIC STOPS
If a respondent indicated that they had experienced a PPD traffic stop, then the survey asked them to respond to this quesƟon: “In your own words, please tell us about what your traffic stop experiences have been like with the Pasadena Police Department, in general.” The goal of this quesƟon was to capture the respondents’ emergent ideas that might not be measured effecƟvely through the use of closed quesƟons. It was also designed to generate qualitaƟve data that may highlight traffic-stop related fricƟon points.
In looking at the responses to this quesƟon, two groups of respondents offered highly divergent comments in relaƟon to their traffic stop experiences. One group offered posiƟve comments on their traffic stop experience while the other group offered strongly criƟcal comments of their experience.
PosiƟve Comments on Traffic Stops with PPD
Among the group of respondents who offered posiƟve comments, the most common observaƟon related to the perceived professionalism of the officer. While the respondents reported varying levels of enthusiasm for the fact that they were pulled over, they tended to emphasize that the officer acted in a fair, respecƞul, and professional manner. “…The officer treated me fairly. I was respected as a ciƟzen and he listened to my reason for the violaƟon. Overall, despite the circumstances, I feel the officer treated me well.”
“They have been fair and imparƟal, and they treated me with respect.” “I've only ever been pulled over once. That was during heavy Rose Bowl traffic that impacted the neighborhood where I live. The officer was understanding” “Annoying, but polite”
“I believe it was the way it should be. I didn’t feel he was unfair or rude or without cause.”
Respondents offering posiƟve common also tended to comment that the officer was just performing their job.
“[B]usiness like. They are doing their job”
“Officer was professional and doing her job”
“…[O]fficer was doing their job.”
Some of these respondents wrote that they were at fault, and in a few cases indicated that the experience led to a change in their driving.
“I was in the wrong, and the officer was doing their job.” 36 of 137
COMMUNITY EXPERIENCES WITH TRAFFIC STOPS
13 “I was speeding. The cop was polite and wrote me a Ɵcket” “Officer stopped me for too many lane changes and not using my signal light. Stop was amicable and professional.”
“It was a good experience and made me focus on my driving”
CriƟcal Comments on Traffic Stops with PPD
A second disƟnct group offered more criƟcal commentary on their traffic stop experience.
Within this group, the respondents reported that they felt mistreated during the traffic stop, or were concerned about the officer’s conduct during the traffic stop interacƟon. Many of these comments related to the officer’s demeanor, while some community members offered more serious allegaƟons relaƟng to officer conduct.
“My wife was driving as we were coming from church on a Sunday morning. I had forgoƩen to put the registraƟon sƟcker on the plate and the officer pulled us over. He took my wife’s license and the registraƟon. He then demanded mine, I asked what for, he said don't ask quesƟons just hand over your ID. I felt he was very egoƟsƟcal and disrespecƞul.”
“I have experienced police officers being disrespecƞul and inƟmidaƟng when there was no need to be.”
“I felt uncomfortable when being asked personal quesƟons about my inƟmate life.” “YES! PPD is rude, unprofessional, sexist in the calls for service or aŌer an accident. I was the vicƟm of an accident and because of their unprofessional acƟons I incurred costs.”
“My traffic stop experiences have ranged from professional traffic violaƟon (in areas like South area of Pasadena and near Old Town), to extremely unprofessional and sexual harassment. An officer [Redacted] once proceeded to flirt with a friend of mine aŌer telling us we were the same age as his daughter. When I vocalized that I was not okay with him talking to her that way he threatened to escalate the situaƟon by arresƟng me.”
Respondents in this group also raised quesƟons about why they were stopped. Some wrote that they had concerns about the basis for the stop or believed that they had not done anything wrong that warranted being pulled over.
“Rude, inappropriate behavior, pulled over for a for a "missing license light” that was not missing and was very much working”
“Officer told me I ran a red light and blew thru the light. The light was green and turned yellow when I was in the intersecƟon. The officer told me I was lying and told 37 of 137
COMMUNITY EXPERIENCES WITH TRAFFIC STOPS
14 me I should apologize to him. He bullied me and I was scared and nervous. When I did nothing wrong and was driving safe. I felt mistreated and lost respect for the two young officers.”
“I really did not do what the officer asserted I had done. They contacted me, checked ID and insurance. Looked around car, gave me a warning, and sent me on my way.” “I was pulled over due to a poliƟcal bumper sƟcker the officer apparently disagreed with. I had broken zero laws.”
PERCEIVED PRETEXTUAL STOPS
Community respondents who reported that they believed they experienced a pretextual traffic stop were asked: “Why do you believe that you experienced a pretextual traffic stop?” There were fewer responses to this open-ended quesƟon. However, there were four themes in how they responded to this quesƟon.
The most common theme related to the race of the car’s occupants. “In one of the citaƟons I received which I believe was pretextual was for pulling over at a red curb. The only reason why I pulled over there was because the officer turned their lights on and directed me to pull over immediately at that curb. I believe this was pretextual because I was driving with a friend who is Black and has darker skin complexion and also an area of town where such pretextual stops tend to happen more.…in two instances I was driving with friends with dark complexions. You get the feeling as a driver that PPD will racially profile and generally profile more in North West” “Because I am Black.”
[M]y friend was African-American and was driving at night” A second common theme in response to this quesƟon related to minor equipment defects or traffic infracƟons that either did not exist or would not normally warrant a traffic stop. “[P]ulled over for a for a "missing license light ” that was not missing and was very much working”
“Just for a taillight had to get out of the car”
“Reasons for stops are ridiculous, such as a "dim" light...” “Pulled over for lack of turn signal in changing lanes, quickly led to illegal search of car that was thrown out of court when challenged.”
Others reported that they believed they were pulled over because of the characterisƟcs of their car, the Ɵme of night they were driving, or the neighborhood they were driving through. “I was driving my work car (2005 Toyota Corolla) with a big box of toilet paper in the back seat obstrucƟon the view of the driver from the back. The car was preƩy beat-up in 38 of 137
COMMUNITY EXPERIENCES WITH TRAFFIC STOPS
15 a nice park of town; Orange Grove to be exact. It would be expected to be stopped for quesƟoning : )”
“The appearance of my vehicle and the locaƟon where I happened to be driving” “Now that I have a "nicer car" they are "nice." I [would] get pull over for random things when I [used] to drive an older car.”
“I was stopped because “my car fit a descripƟon””
“unfounded, driving late at night”
Some respondents wrote that they believed it was a pretextual traffic stop because of the kinds of quesƟons the PPD officer asked.
“Got pulled over and was quickly asked if I was on probaƟon or parole. Then the officer ask me if I have weapons in the car. Then lets me know why I was pulled over.” “The quesƟons asked by the officers when they pulled me over” “Because I was stopped for going over the speed limit, and by the quesƟons I was asked it seemed that way, but I think that’s how cops are proacƟve. We need them to be more proacƟve vs reacƟve.”
Several of the respondents pointed out that the PPD officer seemed to be looking for a specific type of crime, with DUIs being the most frequently menƟoned focus. “I was stopped for a brake light out very late at night. I believe the officer was looking for a DUI.”
“My lights were off as I had just leŌ a well lit parking garage and didn't realize the auto lights were off, as was normal habit, but it had been raining earlier and they got turned off... I didn't know (my partner's car) and then got pulled over for lights then it escalated by officer to a DUI check (I had NOT been drinking).
One addiƟonal explanaƟon for why they believed it was a pretextual stop was because it they did not believe the officer’s explanaƟon for the traffic stop. “Although I was explained why I was pulled over (third break light was out at the Ɵme) there was no way the officer could see that as we passed each other going opposite ways and immediately made a u turn to get behind me for a couple blocks and pull me over , note as he turned around and got behind me I was not pressing break pedal unƟl 2 blocks later at the stop light. I’m sure he noƟced that at the stop light and used that as the “reason” to pull me over but I’m clueless to why he acted in such fast way to flip u turn and come aŌer me…The reason why I was pulled over would be impossible to be noƟceable in the way it played out.
39 of 137
16 SECTION 2
OFFICER EXPERIENCES WITH PRETEXTUAL STOPS
40 of 137
OFFICER EXPERIENCES WITH PRETEXTUAL STOPS
17 SECTION 2
OFFICER EXPERIENCES WITH PRETEXTUAL STOPS
This secƟon explores officer experiences with traffic stops, with a parƟcular focus on pretextual stops. At the beginning of the secƟon, we look at how oŌen the officer conducts traffic stops of any type, as well as pretextual stops. We then explore the circumstances under which the officers might conduct traffic stops, as well as the reasons why the officer may choose not to conduct pretextual traffic stops.
Involvement in Traffic Stops
The first two quesƟons on the survey asked officers to specify how oŌen they conduct traffic stops of any kind and the frequency with which they conduct pretextual traffic stops in their current posiƟon. Most of the officers who responded to the survey were not heavily involved in conducƟng traffic stops in their current posiƟon, with 61% reporƟng that they conducted traffic stops only rarely or never . The officers were even less likely to pretextual traffic stops during a typical shiŌ, with 74% reporƟng they use them rarely or never.
Table 8: In your current assignment, how often do you:
Statements
Very
frequently Frequently Occasionally Rarely Never Total
Conduct traffic stops of
any type during a typical
shift? 11% 4% 24% 39% 22% 100%
n 5 2 11 18 10 46
Initiate pretextual traffic
stops during a typical
shift? 4% 4% 17% 33% 41% 100%
n 2 2 8 15 19 46
41 of 137
OFFICER EXPERIENCES WITH PRETEXTUAL STOPS
18 Circumstances When Pretextual Stops Might Be Used
The third quesƟon on the survey asked officers to: “Please describe briefly the most common circumstances under which you might conduct a pretextual traffic stop?” There were four reasons that officers who responded to the survey used pretextual stops. The most frequent was to proacƟvely invesƟgate suspicions relaƟng to criminal behavior, parƟcularly in neighborhoods with high levels of crime, narcoƟcs, or gang acƟvity. “Increase proactivity in a high crime area where there is a need for extra enforcement. ”
“Investigating criminal activity and conducting proactive investigations. ” “[D]rug enforcement and gang enforcement activity at problem locations” “In a high crime area, being proactive in a way to keep the community safe. ” “Vehicles leaving known gang areas, high crime areas and problem locations. ” “When a vehicle has left a motel, known to the police, for its high drug traƯic activity. ”
It was reasonably common for officers to emphasize that they use pretextual stops because they are legal and a useful tool for prevenƟng crime.
“Pretext stop are legal and useful to stop crime.”
“ConducƟng pretext stops are very important in police work.” “I will always use pretextual stops to aid in prevenƟng criminal acƟvity and apprehend” criminals.
A number of officers indicated that they would use a pretextual stop when they sought to invesƟgate potenƟal criminal behavior but did not have enough evidence to stop the car based only on their suspicion.
“When oƯicers … suspect a driver of a vehicle is potentially involved in illegal and/or criminal activity, but don't have enough evidence to initiate a traƯic stop based solely on that suspicion. ”
“When I observe a known gang member or subject I know does not have a valid DL. I would stop the driver for a violation I see. ”
“If I see something else associated with the vehicle, the vehicle's passengers or the behavior associated with the vehicle I would initiate a pretextual stop. ” Some oƯicers noted that they will initiate a pretextual stop at the request or direction of an investigative unit or to assist in an investigation.
42 of 137
OFFICER EXPERIENCES WITH PRETEXTUAL STOPS
19 “I could be notified by a Special Enforcement Unit to conduct a pretextual stop while on routine patrol. ”
“Undercover unit identified a vehicle that is possibly connected to a crime series, and the driver / occupants are unidentified. An OƯicer can initiate a traƯic stop for vehicle code violation. ”
To assist in the identification of the vehicle's occupants for the furtherance of a criminal investigation
Why Some Officer Might Not Use Pretextual Stops
AŌer asking the officers why they might conduct a pretextual stop, the survey asked officers to explain why they might not use pretextual stops (“If you are unlikely to use pretextual stops, can you briefly explain why?”). There were comparaƟvely few responses to this quesƟon. Several officers responded to the quesƟon by staƟng that they intend to conƟnue using pretextual stops because they are a useful tool.
“I am not unlikely. Pretext stop are legal and useful to stop crime. ” “I will always use pretextual stops to aid in preventing criminal activity and apprehend criminals. ”
ConducƟng pretext stops are very important in police work.
Some officers reported that pretextual stops are simply not the main focus of their work when they are out on patrol, or they are too busy with calls to conduct pretextual stops. “I look for violaƟons where I can issue citaƟons.”
“Not my main focus when I'm out on patrol”
“Really just depends on how busy the calls for service are”
43 of 137
20 SECTION 3
OFFICER VIEWS ON THE BENEFITS/DRAWBACKS OF PRETEXTUAL
STOPS
44 of 137
OFFICER BENEFITS/DRAWBACK OF PRETEXT STOPS
21 SECTION 3
OFFICER VIEWS ON THE BENEFITS/DRAWBACKS OF PRETEXTUAL
STOPS
One of the core substanƟve secƟons of the officer survey asked respondents whether they believed that pretextual stops had any benefits or drawbacks. In this secƟon, we will first explore officer views relaƟng to the benefits of pretextual stops. We then examine officer views on the limitaƟons of pretextual stops.
OFFICER VIEWS ON THE BENEFITS OF PRETEXTUAL STOPS
Officers reported that pretextual stops offer a number of benefits. The most frequent comments related to their effecƟveness in prevenƟng crime and enhancing public safety. “Pretext stops are useful to stop crime before it occurs.” “I personally have illegal recovered firearms, located persons wanted for violent crimes, and even located criminals immediately aŌer commiƫng a crime because of pretext traffic stops. This was not unique to me, and the department has the staƟsƟcs to prove it.”
“Opens opportuniƟes to invesƟgate crimes that are deeper than an infracƟon that will have a greater impact if not stopped, I.E. DUI drivers/invesƟgaƟons” “Pretextual traffic stops enhance community safety. Officers receive extensive training and have a wealth of pracƟcal experience to draw from when conducƟng these stops.
Consequently, these stops can lead to the confiscaƟon of dangerous weapons, narcoƟcs, and other evidence of criminal acƟvity.”
A large proporƟon of the officers argued that pretextual stops are especially useful because they allow officers to be proacƟve in their work.
“it's pro-acƟve policing. it enables the "senƟnel effect" which is where if people think the police are watching, they will be more law abiding.
“ProacƟve policing is a the best way to combat crime in Pasadena. Visibility as a police officer within the community we are protecƟng. AcƟvely solving problems instead of being reacƟve. ”
“Pretextual stops are necessary for public safety and to solve crimes. ProacƟve enforcement such as "Pretextual Stops" have prevented crimes from occurring as well as led to the arrest of many serious offenders who otherwise may not have been apprehended. ”
45 of 137
OFFICER BENEFITS/DRAWBACK OF PRETEXT STOPS
22 Officers also focused their comments on the value that pretextual stops can have in combaƟng illegal drugs and firearms, as well as arresƟng dangerous, habitual criminals. “ReducƟon in violent crime, quality arrests of violent gang members, and the seizure of guns and narcoƟcs”
“I have seen many benefits of pretextual stops. OŌen Ɵmes officers find other crimes taking places such as narcoƟcs in the vehicle or dangerous weapons.” “It is beneficial when the officer(s) are stopping person(s) to are known to commit violent crimes, carry weapons or are habitual DUI drivers.”
Another benefit officers idenƟfied was that the use of pretextual stops are a legal tool they can use to conduct invesƟgaƟons of suspicious acƟvity.
“Ability to legally contact individuals who may or may not be engaging in illegal acƟviƟes.”
“The ability to develop invesƟgaƟons during a legal detainment of a subject. ” “Strengthen the reason for contacƟng individuals Probable cause from a traffic violaƟon meets a higher legal standard than reasonable suspicion and thus is less likely to be suppressed.”
While less common, several officers reported that pretextual stops can be used to protect the idenƟty of confidenƟal informants.
“To create independent probable cause for a traffic stop to protect the idenƟty of an informant. E.G. the informant provided informaƟon about drugs or weapons in a vehicle. the independent traffic stop allows for the removal of the informant.” “It is a very important tool to have. One very important reason is to protect an informant.”
“ProtecƟon of community informants who do not want to be exposed as part of an invesƟgaƟon with problem locaƟons or career criminals.” 46 of 137
OFFICER BENEFITS/DRAWBACK OF PRETEXT STOPS
23 OFFICER VIEWS ON THE DRAWBACKS TO PRETEXTUAL STOPS
Officers did idenƟfy several potenƟal problems with pretextual stops. However, it is worth noƟng that officers’ most common responses to this quesƟon were that pretextual stops have no drawbacks.
“No real drawbacks.”
“I do not see any drawbacks as it is a tool for law enforcement to further public safety” “I don’t see any drawbacks because they help solve crimes and take large amounts of drugs off the street.”
“I personally do not see drawbacks to using pretextual stops.” “THERE ARE NO DRAWBACKS AS THIS IS AN EFFECTIVE TOOL ALLOWED UNDER THE LAW”
While many of the officers did not report any drawbacks to the use of pretextual stops, some officers did menƟon potenƟal issues. Several noted that the public does not understand pretextual stops and may see their use as a form of targeƟng or harassment. “PotenƟal drawbacks are the perspecƟves of the community. It is possible that some see it as a type of harassment. However, the officer is only trying to do good lawful police work within the law. As officers we should not solely be reacƟve, we must also be proacƟve and stop crimes before they happen. “
“[I]t could be perceived as targeƟng, however percepƟon isn't always reality.“ “Certain person(s) can feel targeted for being stopped more frequently.“ MulƟple officers commented that pretextual stops can upset people, which may cause fricƟon between the police and community, and damage public percepƟons of the police. “Subjects may get stopped who are conducƟng normal everyday acƟviƟes, and their vehicles may be searched (upon consent or developed PC). “legal and useful but someƟmes upsets people
“Public percepƟon, lead to use of force, ciƟzens non-compliant or complain “NegaƟve community percepƟon and the false narraƟve that these stops are illegal or should be banned. Pretextual stops are a proacƟve tool for police officers to ensure public safety.
One officer noted that pretextual stops disproporƟonately affect minority communiƟes. They might disproporƟonately affect minoriƟes and other populaƟons depending on the demographics of a community. In Pasadena, the gangs are disproporƟonately African American or Hispanic, and targeƟng specific gangs might lead to more stops of certain races.
47 of 137
24 SECTION 4
COMMUNITY VIEWS ON THE BENEFITS/DRAWBACKS OF PRETEXTUAL STOPS
48 of 137
COMMUNITY BENEFITS/DRAWBACKS OF PRETEXT STOPS
25 SECTION 4
COMMUNITY VIEWS ON THE BENEFITS/DRAWBACKS OF PRETEXTUAL STOPS
Like the officer survey, the third substanƟve secƟon of community member survey contained two open-ended quesƟons that asked the respondents whether pretextual stops had any benefits or drawbacks. In this secƟon, we will first explore community member views relaƟng to the benefits of pretextual stops. We then examine community views on the limitaƟons of pretextual stops.
COMMUNITY VIEWS ON THE BENEFITS OF PRETEXTUAL STOPS
In this part of the survey, community members were asked: "Do you see any benefits to the use of pretextual stops by the Pasadena Police Department? Please explain." In comparison to officers, there was more variaƟon in how the community members responded to this quesƟon with most community members falling into one of three disƟnct groups. The first group, who could be described as pretextual stop skepƟcs, reported that they believed that pretextual stops offer no benefits.
“No, not at all.”
“I do not feel this is necessary.”
“I do not see any see any benefits.”
The second group of respondents tried to take a middle-ground and reported qualified support because they believed that pretextual stops could be a useful tool with some benefits in certain situaƟons. However, this group tended to qualify their support and recognized that pretextual stops need to be based on a lawful traffic stop and can someƟmes have undesirable consequences. These community members indicated that whether pretextual stops are helpful or harmful will depend on a range of situaƟonal factors. “Pretextual stops should take place when there is…strong evidence to support suspected criminal acƟvity. As a POC, I'm conflicted about pretextual stops, especially when they take place because of race.”
“No. I believe that an officer will use their best professional discreƟon when stopping someone. Are they perfect? No, they are human. However. I believe that there have been more posiƟve results in prevenƟng crime than not.” “Any searches conducted during a pretextual stop should be rare and must have the consent of the stopee and/or otherwise be consƟtuƟonal. Avoid harassment for the sake of harassment.”
49 of 137
COMMUNITY BENEFITS/DRAWBACKS OF PRETEXT STOPS
26 “They can be problemaƟc but it all depends on the stop itself” The third group idenƟfied pretextual stops as a criƟcally important tool for law enforcement.
Unlike the first two groups, they did not report any problems with the use of pretextual traffic stops. While a small number within this group argued that officers should have unconstrained discreƟon to pull individuals over, most respondents reported that pretextual stops need to be based on a lawful iniƟal traffic stop.
“They are legal. But obviously there must be a legiƟmate traffic infracƟon preceding the stop.”
“I expect the PD to only make traffic stops when jusƟfied, but when they do, to legally further invesƟgate any hunches or suspicions in order to promote public safety.” “Officers have to be permiƩed to conduct their lawful duƟes in order to keep Pasadena safe from unlawful acƟvity. As long as it is done a lawful manner mindful of community standards then I believe Pasadena will benefit. Safety of community members and that of law enforcement is of paramount importance. Allowing unlawfulness will lead to lack of confidence in those we rely upon to protect us. Outright lawlessness may become the norm.”
“Pretextual stops are a valuable tool to maintain order and public safety. There is no need for any changes to exisƟng laws or policies.”
“Police should have the right to pull anyone over if they feel there is jusƟficaƟon. That why the police department was formed, to keep the community safe.” “Police should make whatever type stops they deem necessary. Crime is out of control.”
PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF PRETEXTUAL STOPS AMONG COMMUNITY RESPONDENTS The respondents who offered support pointed to a wide range of specific benefits that they believed pretextual traffic stops offered. By far the most specific benefit respondents idenƟfied was the potenƟal of pretextual stops to be used proacƟvely to prevent crime and protect the public. The language employed by community members strongly mirrored the crime prevenƟon and public safety comments offered by many of the police officers who responded to the survey.
“ProacƟve police work and pretextual stops keep the community safer” “Yes. Officers can detect more serious offenses, such as drug trafficking, illegal weapons, or outstanding warrants, which may not be discovered otherwise. “ABSOLUTELY! I want my community to be safe and pretextual stops give the police another tool to maintain that level of safety. I strongly support their ability to make pretextual stops.”
50 of 137
COMMUNITY BENEFITS/DRAWBACKS OF PRETEXT STOPS
27 “Yes. When invesƟgaƟng officers are doing their policing job fairly and aƩempƟng to stop criminals or find informaƟon that may make people safer as a result.” “Yes. They are an important crime suppression tool that is necessary to fight the wave of gang and gun-related crimes in Pasadena.”
It was reasonably common for community members who supported pretextual stop to point out that these types of stops are permissible when conducted in a lawful manner. “If there is a legiƟmate reason to pull someone over, and no evidence of any other crime is found, there was sƟll a reason for the stop.”
“If the courts do not see a reason to prohibit such stops, who do you think you are to push for such a restricƟon?”
“ConsƟtuƟonally Valid.”
Like most officers, some community respondents argued that pretextual stops can help support effecƟve invesƟgaƟons.
“YES. The stop is completely legal and provides an opportunity for the police to develop further informaƟon/evidence about other potenƟal crimes. Many such stops have resulted in arrests of dangerous/wanted persons or the development of crucial evidence that otherwise would have never been found. A perfect example: Ted Bundy stopped for traffic infracƟon, incriminaƟng items found aŌer a search leading to murder charges.” “Yes. It gives them an excuse to interact with someone they are suspicious of. At a minimum, to get informaƟon on who they are, in addiƟon to potenƟally issuing a traffic/code violaƟon or warning.”
“Yes. It is important to idenƟfy illegal acƟviƟes and enforce the law. If a suspect is innocent and not commiƫng crimes, then the minor disrupƟon to their day is worth the potenƟal crimes that may be idenƟfied and stopped.”
When discussing the value of pretextual stop for criminal invesƟgaƟons, some community members focused on the perceived impact pretextual stops can have on reducing illegal acƟvity and serious forms of crime, with the possession of illegal firearms and narcoƟcs being some of the most frequently menƟoned examples.
“Many Ɵmes guns and other illegal contraband are located.” “Yes. Officers can detect more serious offenses, such as drug trafficking, illegal weapons, or outstanding warrants, which may not be discovered otherwise.” “absolutely. Many illegal guns and felons violaƟng parole have been taken off our streets each year. This undoubtedly has prevented serious crimes. Unfortunately, staƟsƟcs show that certain demographics (esp young males) are significantly more likely 51 of 137
COMMUNITY BENEFITS/DRAWBACKS OF PRETEXT STOPS
28 to be carrying a gun, be on parole, or carrying drugs. So it makes sense to look there first”
“Absolutely, pretextual stops provide MANY benefits to the community: DetecƟon of serious crimes, removing weapons from the streets, proacƟve crime prevenƟon, ability to invesƟgate suspicious acƟvity, public safety issues related to driving violaƟons” “We need law enforcement to do their jobs. Many Ɵmes they have found guns and/or drugs in these stops. Please conƟnue”
One addiƟonal recurring theme relaƟng to the benefits of pretextual stops focused on the belief that pretextual stops would not affect law abiding residents. From this perspecƟve, the only people who have to worry about pretextual stops are people who are engaged in criminal acƟvity or have something to hide.
“The only people who have an issue are those with something to hide.” “No. If you’ve only commiƩed a minor infracƟon you have nothing to worry about. Those worried about these stops have something to hide.”
“If you have done nothing wrong or are not in the possession of something illegal you have nothing to worry about.”
“If the driver had nothing to hide, it's not a problem”
PERCEIVED DRAWBACK OF PRETEXTUAL STOPS
Community members were also asked to describe the perceived drawback to pretextual traffic stops through the use of the following quesƟon: “Do you see any problems with the use of pretextual stops by the Pasadena Polic Department? Please explain.” In response to this quesƟon, the strong supporters of pretextual stops indicated that they believed that there were no drawbacks to the use of pretextual stops. “No. If there is a legiƟmate reason to pull someone over, and no evidence of any other crime is found, there was sƟll a reason for the stop.
“No. Police should make whatever type stops they deem necessary. Crime is out of control.”
“No as long as they are respecƞul and treat people with dignity” “No- they are honestly working hard to protect all ciƟzens to live and travel safely” “I don’t see any issue with pretextual stops.”
However, even though community supporters saw no drawbacks, another group of community members reported a wide range of drawbacks. The most common drawback was the perceived impact that pretextual stops can have on profiling and discriminaƟon. 52 of 137
COMMUNITY BENEFITS/DRAWBACKS OF PRETEXT STOPS
29 “Yes, it would make it…easy to profile people, possibly discriminate when their are genuine people out here actually commiƫng Crimes and or commiƫng violaƟons” “PotenƟally they could just do it to harass people they have a unreasonable bias against.
Stopping such people for violaƟons they ignore for others.” “Absolutely. It is rare when the use of pretextual stops prevent crime and they encourage biased patrolling of people.”
“I think pretextual stops increase the risk and discriminaƟon that comes with profiling people”
A related set of comments reported that pretextual stops driven by racial, ethnic, and class bias.
In making this argument, some community respondents referenced social science research to support their argument.
“Data has consistently shown that naƟonwide, police target POC, especially Black people, on pretext stops. Even though on a percentage basis they recover far more contraband from White people. Pretext stops in and of themselves are not inherently bad, it is the way they are applied. And there is a very well documented history of systemic racism exisƟng in law enforcement. PreƩy much every single one. Has been that way since their incepƟon as runaway slave-catching patrols and highly unlikely that is ever going to change.”
“Yes, studies have shown pretextual stops exacerbate racial dispariƟes in policing.” “These stops are disproporƟonately used on Black and brown communiƟes. It's stop and frisk: vehicle ediƟon. Crime is a symptom of poverty. Instead of funding soluƟons we put hundreds of millions into policing without any results.” “Pretextual stops perpetuate harm against our diverse communiƟes. PracƟces that rely on having public servants make assumpƟons of criminality based on factors such as an individual's race or economic status, severely harm and disproporƟonately affect non- White individuals.”
“As a POC, yes I do have issues with pretextual stops if the are based on race. I think it has been proven POC are more likely to be vicƟmized by pretextual stops. It is a slippery slope.”
One related observaƟon was that the pretextual stops are not just biased. Instead, they also allow the concrete burdens imposed by pretextual stops to fall disproporƟonately on people of color and other minority communiƟes.
“PPD has shot and killed Black motorists and passengers in Pasadena following pretextual traffic stops. How many white Pasadena ciƟzens have been shot and killed aŌer a pretextual stop? Zero?”
53 of 137
COMMUNITY BENEFITS/DRAWBACKS OF PRETEXT STOPS
30 “Yes, we can clearly see what the bias is - people of color especially Black and brown are treated as suspects especially in North West. This area is over policed and underfunded.
The officer bias affects our young people as they look at young people as suspects as well. They have killed men of color and young people as a result of this policy. Kendrec McDade was killed while he was walking home. He was only 19. He didn't have a gun but the officers approaching him were scared he had one and the policy gave them the right to approach him gestapo style. This is not okay. We need change in Pasadena. The community is Ɵred of having their children and loved ones treated like suspects 24/7 and having their lives stolen because of a "hunch"”
“Yes, I have concerns that low income drivers and black drivers will be disproporƟonately impacted.”
“I do not see the same volume of policing in high income neighborhoods (from which young adults have access and money for illegal drugs) as I do in lower income neighborhoods. BeƩer off enforcing traffic violaƟons which as a pedestrian and cyclist I see oŌen which put my life and those of other residents in danger. In fact I’ve seen plenty of officers not signal their turns and running red lights with no urgency so I assume they’re not even responding to calls.”
“As a white male, the likelihood of being pulled over to invesƟgate more serious crimes is especially low. Not equitable to all ciƟzens.”
While community supporters of pretextual stops argue that they increase public safety, community opponents contend that this type of traffic stop can escalate police-community conflict, reduce public safety, and increase the danger for both residents and police officers. “They also risk escalaƟng into confrontaƟons and numerous studies” “…police do not deescalate and make any situaƟon worse and more dangerous automaƟcally”
“[Pretext stops] result in tragic consequences including deaths and it is dangerous for police officers”
“[M]y experience with the police department outside of pretext stops (which has been aŌer an accident and two different calls for assistance to our home) shows me that PPD should not be doing pretextual stops…That puts residents in significant danger” “I believe this type of stop will cause unnecessary fataliƟes as ciƟzen may fear for their life and use bad judgement. The officer may do the same.” Another common drawback that opponents of pretextual stops highlight is the potenƟally negaƟve impact these types of traffic may have on community trust in the police. Overall, they contend that the use of pretextual stops erodes trust and reduces the willingness of overpoliced communiƟes to cooperate with the police.
54 of 137
COMMUNITY BENEFITS/DRAWBACKS OF PRETEXT STOPS
31 “These stops lead to community mistrust of police and take resources away from more important public safety needs, while rarely helping police solve crimes.” “It also builds mistrust in communiƟes they supposedly want to build trust in (or do they?). It also is like a mass fishing expediƟon that probably won't get them the answers they are looking for most of the Ɵme. If they used actual quality and ethical invesƟgaƟve pracƟce and methods they would probably get further. Also they end up treaƟng community who deserve protecƟon like everyone is a suspect. Lack of understanding, lack of trust. Depending on an old school, Jim Crow relic policy of a former sundown town won't build racial jusƟce or equity here.”
“I can see problems arise from this. The community, especially black and brown folk have distrust with PPD and pre textual stops contribute to this distrust. If the intenƟon is to stop someone because of a tail light or such but then because an excuse to further invesƟgate a hunch then the it adds to why one also builds a hunch of feeling like they are not safe.”
“These stops erode trust between communiƟes and law enforcement. They also risk escalaƟng into confrontaƟons and numerous studies have shown they have liƩle proven effect on crime reducƟon. While legal, pretextual stops present ethical concerns, as they oŌen feel like harassment.”
Some community opponents of pretextual stops argued that they can be ineffecƟve at reducing crime, in part because the hyper-focus on communiƟes of color allows police departments to overlook other communiƟes where serious crime might be happening. “…numerous studies have shown they have liƩle proven effect on crime reducƟon.” “Officers hone in on minoriƟes because of lack of training, therefore other offenders are free to move guns and large amounts of contraband without fear of being stopped by PPD officers.”
“Yes. Its evasive and PPD has other means to really determine who is commiƫng crimes that warrant pretextual stops”
“it is a lazy and unprofessional policing tacƟc that can be subjecƟvely applied and subject to inherent and/or unconscious individual bias. Most good cops I've known don't need to go on "fishing expediƟons" based on no probable cause, as they seem to find plenty of real crimes based on real evidence or observaƟons, usually with plenty of probable cause.”
Other community opponents argue that the costs associated with pretextual stops outweigh any potenƟal benefits it may bring.
55 of 137
COMMUNITY BENEFITS/DRAWBACKS OF PRETEXT STOPS
32 “It's not worth giving up our rights to travel without being harassed to catch a handful of people. It's more likely that good people will get in trouble for just going to work and back and minding their own business.”
“The risks outweigh the benefits and puts other drivers at risk if the pretextual stop triggers a high-speed chase.”
“They may cause more harm than good.”
Opponents of pretextual stops also indicated that these types of traffic stops can waste public resources by diverƟng aƩenƟon away from more serious and harmful forms of crime. “WasƟng tax payer money.”
“furthermore, it's actually a waste of resources and tax dollars to be spending public Ɵme on such minor infracƟons. Let's focus on moving violaƟons and crimes.” “Pasadena is a diverse city that should use its public resources to promote safety and solve serious crimes. Pretextual stops do the opposite of promoƟng safety. They take away precious resources, enabling public servants to discriminate against individuals based on the public servant's assumpƟons of criminality informed by their personal biases.”
Quite a few opponents also noted that pretextual stops can have negaƟve consequences for individuals. One parƟcular negaƟve consequence can be that law-abiding ciƟzens exposed to these kinds of traffic stops can perceive them as a form of systemaƟc harassment. “…[pretext stops] oŌen feel like harassment.”
“ask potenƟal incriminaƟng quesƟons to harass the public.” “ it can be a hassle for law-abiding ciƟzens who feel they have been unfairly targeted for a traffic stop.”
“A person should be able to drive without being harassed.” A second type of negaƟve consequence can be that exposure to pretextual stops can generate a great deal of stress and anxiety for the individuals who experience them. “As a white person, I've never been pulled over for a pretext stop. The few Ɵmes I have been pulled over, the officers did not try to search me for weapons or drugs. But I have personally witnessed the opposite behavior towards black and LaƟno residents. I watched the police stop a LaƟno walking his bike and ask to search his backpack for drugs, and they told him he was stopped for Jay walking. AŌer they leŌ, that man cried while he told me how afraid he was. He was afraid that if he didn't comply with the search they might hurt or kill him.”
“…causes stress just knowing they have all the power” 56 of 137
COMMUNITY BENEFITS/DRAWBACKS OF PRETEXT STOPS
33 A final drawback that opponents of pretextual stops menƟoned is related to the discreƟonary nature of pretextual stops. In this, they indicated that pretextual stops grant too much discreƟon to police officers.
“[T]he idea is inherently biased. You'd be giving a officer full discreƟon over who they choose to search”
“Because there are so many ways to violate driving rules it…gives the police cart blanch on invesƟgaƟng anyone they want for any reason. In this regard there are too many other factors (race, gender, sexuality, etc.) involved in pre textual stops for them to work justly.”
57 of 137
34 SECTION 5
COMMUNITY AND OFFICER PERCEPTIONS OF BIAS IN PRETEXTUAL STOPS
58 of 137
PERCEPTIONS OF BIAS IN PRETEXTUAL STOPS
35 SECTION 5
COMMUNITY AND OFFICER PERCEPTIONS OF BIAS IN PRETEXTUAL STOPS
An addiƟonal open-ended quesƟon on both the community and officer surveys survey asked respondents to write a liƩle more about whether they perceived bias to be a problem in relaƟon to pretextual traffic stops. Specifically, the survey posed the following quesƟon: “In some ciƟes, community members have raised concerns about the potenƟal role of bias in the use of pretextual stops by law enforcement. Do you have any concerns about officer bias in the use of pretextual stops? Please explain."
COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS OF BIAS
As with the previous secƟon, community respondents who opposed pretextual traffic stops tended to report that they believed there is substanƟal racial and class bias in these kinds of traffic stops. As such, there was substanƟal overlap in how community members who opposed pretextual stops responded to this quesƟon and the previous quesƟon on the drawbacks of pretextual stops.
“Yes. Biases usually target minoriƟes and low income communiƟes I do think bias plays a role in pretextual stops. I think [i]t has been proven. As I previously stated it seems to be an inordinate number of pretextual stops are racially based. That's a problem.” “Yes, I have concerns that low income drivers and black drivers will be disproporƟonately impacted.”
“Yes. That is mostly what pretext stops are all about. While officers use pretext stops to pull over white people, the data shows that the vast majority of such stops are of people of color.”
“Absolutely have such concerns. I don't think they would ever search me (white 60 yo woman in minivan) but they'd search a person of color because "concern" is generated by bias.”
“One hundred percent I do. It's a fact that people of color are disproporƟonately pulled over, and adding another reason isn't going to help curve that problem, the police are not immune to bias.”
However, supporters of pretextual stops tended to report that there is no bias in how pretextual stops are used. In parƟcular, they point to the kinds of trainings officers go through in relaƟon to bias. They also tended to report that police officers may not be able to see the race of the drivers they pull over.
59 of 137
PERCEPTIONS OF BIAS IN PRETEXTUAL STOPS
36 “We have spent Ɵme and money to invesƟgate and educate officers on bias, conduct etc. and that has yielded a great awareness and allowed for clear conduct guidelines with disciplinary acƟon when needed. There is oversight in place and should not be the reason we don't enforce even minor traffic laws in Pasadena.“
“Not really. With the ƟnƟng on car windows, I can't tell if the other driver sees me, let alone their race or gender.“
“No. i'm more concerned about being a crime vicƟm. Criminals always complain about being treated unfairly.“
“No concerns. It seems that police officer training to prevent acƟons based on bias has been greatly improved.“
“Not really, I think it is percepƟon only. I am white and believe that I had a pretextual stop“
OFFICER PERCEPTIONS OF BIAS
In response to this quesƟon, officers overwhelmingly responded that bias is not an issue with pretextual traffic stops.
“No. I have never, nor have I witnessed any other officers solely stop someone for their race. The community members who raise these concerns are typically more focused with haƟng police officers then considering how much these traffic stops prevent crime and in turn help the community members who are most affected by crime. Keep in mind these traffic stops are completely legal and have been challenged all the way to the supreme court. As long as the officer is operaƟng legally, morally, and professionally, they are doing their job. A lot of the community members who complain of bias will complain about damn near anything police do.“
“No. I have been in law enforcement for over 20 years and I have never pulled anyone over strictly because of their ethnicity. I have never seen this either. Race has nothing to do with commiƫng a traffic infracƟon.“
“No concerns. Pretext stops are usually conducted during criminal invesƟgaƟons or suspect criminal acƟvity where specific arƟculable facts exist beyond just the violaƟon used to make the stop. Those specific facts can be revealed during the laƩer stages of an invesƟgaƟon or during court proceedings.“
Some officers noted that paƩerns that look like racial or class bias were actually caused by paƩerns in criminal acƟvity, or the high crime neighborhoods in which the officer is assigned to patrol.
60 of 137
PERCEPTIONS OF BIAS IN PRETEXTUAL STOPS
37 “No concerns. In Pasadena we have Black and Hispanic gangs, so those individuals are likely to get stopped more. This is because they are violent gang members, not because they're Black/Hispanic. If we had White/Asian gangs here, that's who would get stopped.
People claiming bias are generally refusing to acknowledge the racial realiƟes of Pasadena's makeup and want to scapegoat the police.“
“I do not have any concerns about officers with bias playing a role in pretextual stops.
The stops are based on behavior and prior interacƟons from the officer where they it was revealed that criminal acƟvity was afoot.”
“No. The community members have failed to accurately review law enforcement staƟsƟcs regarding race and crime. It all has to do with high crime areas. More crime in an area means more cops. More cops means more stops. If a high crime area has a large amount of black people in it. Black people will have a higher rate of being stopped.“ “I believe that race does not play a factor in pretextual stops and that instead, it is the fact that an individuals or vehicles leave a criminal suspected area.” A small number of officers did note that bias is a part of human nature, but that the PPD officers do not act with intenƟonal bias and the department has tools and training to respond to any instances of bias.
As discussed above, such stops can lead to a disproporƟonate impact on certain demographic groups. Bias is innate in human nature, but I believe we have the tools to miƟgate such biases (BWCs, MAVs, etc). I don't believe the men and women of this department go out with any malice when conducƟng enforcement. Bias can be present in any contact but it is the behavior that provides the measurement.
We will never be able to know what is in the mind as it applies to implicit bias. If bias is acƟvely part of the acƟvity then it is acƟonable, otherwise it is not. 61 of 137
38 SECTION 6
COMPARING COMMUNITY AND OFFICER VIEWS ON REFORM
62 of 137
39 SECTION 6
COMPARING COMMUNITY AND OFFICER VIEWS ON REFORM
Toward the end of the survey, both community members and officers were asked the following closed quesƟon: “How strongly do you support efforts to reform the use of pretextual stops in Pasadena?” It was clear that community members were much more supporƟve of reform than the officers who responded to the survey. Roughly 50% of community respondents indicated they strongly supported/supported reforming pretextual stops in Pasadena, while 35% were strongly opposed/opposed. In comparison, only 5% of the responding officers strongly supported/supported reform while 93% strongly opposed/opposed reform.
AŌer being asked about general support for reform, community members and officers were also asked about their support for specific types of pretextual reforms that have been used in other jurisdicƟons. Almost all officers opposed prohibiƟng pretextual stops, eliminaƟng the traffic stops for minor traffic offenses, and bans on searches during pretextual stops. Community members were split fairly evenly between support and opposiƟon on the same reforms.
However, support was higher among both community members and officers for a policy requiring officers to record why they were iniƟaƟng a traffic stop on their body cameras (See the table below).
Table 9: How strongly do you support efforts to reform
the use of pretextual stops in Pasadena?
Response Community Officers
Strongly Support 40% 5%
Support 10% 0%
Neutral 16% 3%
Oppose 16% 11%
Strongly Oppose 19% 82%
Total % 100% 100%
Respondent n 140 38
63 of 137
40 Table 10: Please rate your level of support for the following policy reforms that have been used in other jurisdictions.
Statements
Community
Respondents
PPD
Officers
Prohibit officers from pulling motorists over
for minor traffic offenses
Strongly Support/Support 38% 0%
Neutral 10% 0%
Strongly Oppose/Oppose 51% 100%
Number 138 38
Require officers to record why they are
initiating a traffic stop on their body cameras
Strongly Support/Support 79.7% 28.9%
Neutral 11.6% 50.0%
Strongly Oppose/Oppose 8.7% 21.1%
Number 138 38
Create a policy prohibiting the use of
pretextual traffic stops, except when there is
a threat to public safety
Strongly Support/Support 43.1% 0.0%
Neutral 9.5% 2.6%
Strongly Oppose/Oppose 47.4% 97.4%
Number 137 38
Ban officers from conducting searches during
pretextual stops
Strongly Support/Support 46.7% 0.0%
Neutral 7.3% 2.6%
Strongly Oppose/Oppose 46.0% 97.4%
Number 137 38
64 of 137
41 COMMUNITY COMMENTS ON REFORM
Toward the end of the community survey, respondents were presented with an open-ended quesƟons that asked them: “In your view, is it possible to reform the use of pretextual stops in a way that responds to community concerns while also allowing officers to act in the interest of public safety? Please explain.” The goal of this quesƟon was to allow community respondents present their own emergent ideas about what kinds of reform might make sense for Pasadena.
The most common reform offered by community members was to have pretextual stops abolished. Respondents tended to argue that pretextual stops are inherently flawed and cannot be fixed.
“Any "violaƟon" that is so minor that it does not pose an immediate and significant public safety threat should not be used to pull someone over just so officers can then search the car. If they do want to pull someone over to warn them about a tail light for example or something else like that, searching the car should be out of the quesƟon. Give them the warning and move on.“
“There is no pracƟcal reason to allow pretextual stops whatsoever. It is a tool of inƟmidaƟon, not law enforcement.“
“I opposed the second to last reform because you created a loophole in that. PPD will use that generic loophole at their pleasure and it will allow them to conƟnue using pretext stops indefinitely. They should not be allowed to do pretextual stops. PERIOD. Full stop.
End of story.“
“Pretextual stops must be ABOLISHED. You cannot reform this. Take it away and allow officers to do actual traffic stops and actual invesƟgaƟons not based on a "hunch" not pulling people over leŌ and right and having passengers of color sit on the curb for no reason only to be humiliated. There are improvements in public safety when officers are doing actual invesƟgaƟons not pulling over communiƟes of color en masse. This is a relic of apartheid that has got to go.“
Another frequent reform suggesƟon related to the implementaƟon of new training and reform iniƟaƟves. Some community members suggested that addiƟonal bias training for officers would be helpful.
“Officers need to have more training in order to respect those they approach. OŌen the Bias is already in play before they stop someone”
“Having an ethnically diverse community means that we need to have an ethnically diverse well trained police force. Part of that training needs to focus on belonging, diversity equity and inclusion.“
65 of 137
42 “Training and strict monitoring should be employed to ensure compliance with established standards and laws. Randomized audiƟng by outside agencies and in service training as well as academy training should be mandatory [in] hiring“ “Yes I do. I believe there needs to be more educaƟon on how to preform pretextual stops without causing harm. And I believe performing these kinds of stops less oŌen and with more aƩenƟon can benefit the community.“
“Please Please get the PPD the training that they need. Not the training that they want.
We all want to eat what tastes good as opposed to what is good for us. This city is only as strong as it allows its ciƟzens to make mistakes. Mistakes breed growth. Growth breed strength. I appreciate those who decide to become cops. I just wished that they remembered that they are human and that they are dealing with humans.“ Another group of respondents suggested changes to the screening processes used when hiring officers.
“Background invesƟgaƟons at the point of hiring needs to be in-depth. I the case of lateral hiring from other police agencies, background invesƟgaƟons have to be extensive and ensure that candidates meet standards outlined by the city of Pasadena, along with community standards which ciƟzens have stressed as important.” “Maybe the screening process should be more rigorous regarding racial bias. People like that need to be weeded out. SomeƟmes ignorant, unenlightened people become cops.
That's a problem, too.”
“I think it will be preƩy difficult. It should begin when hiring takes place - be it psychological tesƟng, etc., to idenƟfy bias, moƟvaƟons, interpersonal (people) skills, respect, morality, etc. so the members of the police department are morally and ethically capable of handling the difficult situaƟons they face”
Some community members recommended that more rigorous accountability programs be used to monitor officer decision making regarding pretextual stops. Respondents suggested a variety of monitoring programs that might be helpful, including enhanced documentaƟon standards for pretextual stops, body worn cameras, and addiƟonal internal and external oversight of pretextual decision-making.
“Yes. Have officers verbally document the reason for the stop -- I am assuming they have body cams -- prior to making the stop.“
“Training and strict monitoring should be employed to ensure compliance with established standards and laws. Randomized audiƟng by outside agencies and in service training as well as academy training should be mandatory.“ “There needs to be nuanced oversight of how the stops are being made and the acƟons of officers with stopped people. It should not be expected that such stops will be random 66 of 137
43 throughout the city or types of vehicles or types of people, but officers should be able to explain to supervision not only the pretext violaƟon but what made them suspicious.
And those explanaƟons should be reviewable.“
A related suggesƟon offered by community members involves requiring officers to disclose the reasons for the stop to drivers.
“I support the new law wriƩen by Assemblymember Chris Holden (D-Pasadena), effecƟve January 1, which requires officers to disclose reasons for stops before quesƟoning drivers.”
“I do support the policy of telling the motorist why you have pulled them over.
Otherwise, I expect the PD to only make traffic stops when jusƟfied, but when they do, to legally further invesƟgate any hunches or suspicions in order to promote public safety. “Yes, as long as officer explains reason for stop”
A number of respondents suggested that a more robust disciplinary system needs to be put into place to punish officers who engage in pretext stop related misconduct. “Bias has no place in law enforcement. If this is found to be the case then the officer should be invesƟgated and if found to be true, the officer should be fired aŌer a robust invesƟgaƟon has been completed.”
“Accountability is key. Police administraƟon MUST be held accountable those members that tarnish the badge by engaging in unlawful conduct. There is no place for officers who act in an unlawful maƩer. Conduct that is a credit to the organizaƟon should be celebrated while unbecoming deeds need to be made public and immediate dismissal should occur without excepƟon.”
Enhancing data collecƟon on traffic stops was suggested by several community members. “If allowed, all data for every traffic stop would have to be accumulated and parsed to determine how many were pretextual and then compared for bias data. Geƫng police officers to honestly respond will be difficult. TheoreƟcally possible but highly unlikely in pracƟce.”
“Only if all racial, age, and moving infracƟons are reported, tracked, and supervised by the Police Oversight CommiƩee. Only if the Oversight commiƩee is able to assign penalƟes to officers and remove them from the force when it is discovered that they are abusing power and failing to report stats at the end of every work day.” BeƩer communicaƟon and collaboraƟon between the PPD and the public on the issue of pretextual stops was suggested several Ɵmes as a potenƟal area of reform.
67 of 137
44 “It is criƟcal on how law enforcement approaches and interacts with public. IF this pracƟce MAKES COMMUNITY SAFER need to share ACTUAL cases with community“ “The Chief should share efforts that have already been made - reducing curbing, reviewing stops, etc.“
“No. Well, I guess my only concern is that of "markeƟng". People need to see the benefits. People who get pulled over via pretext and are innocent of any addiƟonal crimes should be handled with the utmost of care and expedited.“ Some community respondents offered comments indicaƟng that they did not believe that reform was actually possible.
“There’s no reforming a broken system. “
“No. If there was no probable cause of a crime, and then there is no legiƟmate basis for such a "so-called" "pretextual" stop, other than the traffic violaƟon. Traffic stops are legal. And traffic stops that also reveal probable cause during the stop are not pretextual stops. Pretextual stops are a lazy and too oŌen easily abused policing tacƟc, that have been enabled by a poorly grounded legally inconsistent Supreme Court, that has no place in a City like Pasadena, with a professional police force. “ “No, pretextual stops are inherently biased and presumpƟve. “ “No, because you cannot prove what officers are thinking“ There were also community members who reported that reform was not necessary. “No, police can't do their jobs. We don't need reform. “ “I haven't seen that there is a problem to fix. “
“No. Pretextual stops are legal, consƟtuƟonal, and a perfectly valid way to fight crime. “ “The police oversight commission should focus on other topics. “ “No, by “reforming” you are removing officers from doing a job they were hired to do.
You are capping them at the knees, and then the community will blame the cops directly when the community becomes inundated with law breaking/crime. “ “We don't need to throw the baby out with the bath water and not do these kinds of stops because there "might" be a bias of some kind. Safety is paramount and we need to keep that in mind. We have seen what happens in other ciƟes when safety is put aside for worry of offending. “
68 of 137
45 OFFICER COMMENTS ON REFORM
Like community members, officers were presented with an open-ended quesƟon that asked them: “In your view, is it possible to reform the use of pretextual stops in a way that responds to community concerns while also allowing officers to act in the interest of public safety? Please explain.” Overall, officers reported relaƟvely few strategies for reforming the use of pretextual stops in Pasadena. It was also common for officers to state that no reform was necessary because pretextual stops are legal tools of law enforcement. “Pretextual stops have already been reformed and have case law in place to prevent officers from unlawfully stopping ciƟzens. PrevenƟng officers from conducƟng enforcement based on minor traffic violaƟons does not seem like a good soluƟon to reform pretextual stops.“
“There is no need to "reform" something that is not unethical or immoral. It has been my experience that those who strongly oppose them are involved in criminal acƟvity, however minor.“
“No. Pretextual stops are legal and an excellent tool in solving problem locaƟons and issues for the community.“
However, a small number of officers indicated that they might be open to some reasonable reforms, parƟcularly if the calls for reform are coming from the wider community. “Not sure how, it seems like a zero sum game. It's hard to imagine the acƟvists being saƟsfied with anything but prohibiƟng pretextual stops. I'm fine with officers staƟng on BWC the violaƟon for the stop, they already do this because they have to tell the driver why they stopped them. Having to explain your pretextual reason on BWC will reveal police intelligence, informants, and tacƟcs and is counterproducƟve.” “If there is a strong enough concern from community members as a whole rather than just a few vocal members, then I would be amenable to considering reform” “I think there can be some sort of happy medium. With input from the community, dialogue can take place to make some type of policy regarding the use of pretext stops.
An outright ban would hinder effecƟve tools used by officers. There is mulƟple instances in just the last year where pretext stops led to the recovery of contraband. If there is a discussion to refine the process vs outright banning the stops, I think a viable improvement can be made.”
Several officers called for beƩer communicaƟon between the PPD and the community, City Council, and media regarding the value of invesƟgaƟve tools like pretextual stops. 69 of 137
46 “Yes, through communicaƟon with the public. PercepƟon is not reality. We need to show the community, City Council, the media why we do it and why it's needed.“ “With input from the community, dialogue can take place to make some type of policy regarding the use of pretext stops.“
“As long as the term pretextual stop is used a de-facto insult to characterize officers who employ racial bias, there is liƩle hope of a substanƟve change. There needs to be beƩer lines of communicaƟon to those members of the community to why police officers need to be inquisiƟve and invesƟgaƟve in their efforts to combat crime. The essence of discriminaƟon has been characterized as the act of formulaƟng opinions about others not based on their individual merits, but rather on their membership in a group with assumed characterisƟcs. The value of this statement is as true for opponents of pretext stops as it is for its supporters: it is a serious mistake to assume that because someone is a police officer, and because they are making a pretext stop or an invesƟgaƟve stop, that the officer(s) moƟvaƟon must be a racial bias.“
EducaƟng the public about the value of pretextual stops was also a recurring comment among officers.
“The community needs to be educated on why officers do pretextual stops and shown not only the values of pretextual traffic stops, but the upƟcks in crime and detriment to the communiƟes that have elected to reform or eradicate pretextual stops.“ “It is difficult to differenƟate between pretextual traffic stops and enforcement stops.
During an enforcement stop, the officer may discover another violaƟon of the law while interacƟng with the traffic violator, necessitaƟng a more thorough invesƟgaƟon.“ However, the violator or community members passing by may perceive the stop as pretextual even though that was not the officer's intenƟon when they iniƟated the stop. “Rather than reform beƩer educaƟon for the concerned members of the public as to why we actually do them and the success stories of improving public safety as a result would be effecƟve. Invite them to have it explained using real examples instead of hearing it from the press, a few people at a city council meeƟng or a professor. I believe the majority of the ciƟzens in Pasadena would support the use of a wall stop to get kilos of fentanyl off the street for example“
70 of 137
47 PERCEIVED EFFECT OF A BAN OR SUBSTANTIAL REFORM ON LAW ENFORCEMENT Officers were asked to idenƟfy the consequences that banning pretextual stops might have on policework in Pasadena: “What impact would banning the use of pretextual stops have on your work as a police officer? Please explain.” This is an issue that officers commented on in unprompted ways in other secƟons of the survey. Officers predicted a number of negaƟve consequences if pretextual stops were reformed or banned outright. Quite a few officers predicted that communiƟes would become less safe if pretextual stops were banned or reformed. More specifically, a substanƟal group of officers argued that limiƟng or banning the use of pretextual stops would limit their ability to conduct proacƟve invesƟgaƟons, cause crime to go up, and leave more illegal guns, narcoƟcs, and dangerous criminals on the street. “Banning pretext stops would create an environment that is dangerous both for the officers and the community. Most of our gun seizures have come from simple traffic stops.“
“Many more will leave, and crime will go up. Look at all the guns we get off traffic stops.“
“As pretextual stops are phased out, violent crimes will increase as confiscaƟng firearms from prohibited subjects will be difficult.“
“Huge impact. Banning the use of pretextual stops would lead to an increase in drugs and guns being leŌ out on the streets, which will result in more overdoses and shooƟngs.“
It was also common for officers to report that effecƟve invesƟgaƟons become harder when pretextual stops are not allowed.
“It makes the invesƟgaƟve nature of police work much more difficult. It removes an important tool for detecƟng crime. When officers find obstacles to their inherent role in protecƟng society, morale goes down.“
“Significant negaƟve impact. A lot of violent crimes would go unsolved and suspects unapprehended if officers could not uƟlize such a powerful tool such as pretext stops. “No, any type of restricƟon that will decrease Officers ability to invesƟgate further will only benefit the criminals. Means less arrests, less T-stops and more guns in the street - end result will be a less safer community.“
Several officers argued that banning pretextual stops would endanger the lives of confidenƟal informants.
“It would expose and endanger informants whose informaƟon make it possible to solve crimes and take dangerous drugs off the street. It would therefore slow down these efforts.“
71 of 137
48 “It would require us to expose informants and community members who report suspicious and criminal acƟvity to the police department instead of allowing officers to use other legal means to invesƟgate sensiƟve neighborhood acƟvity.“
72 of 137
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
49 APPENDIX A
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
The data reported in this project were collected from surveys administered to members of Pasadena’s community and sworn officers from the Pasadena Police Department. This project was sponsored by Pasadena’s Independent Police Auditor (IPA) with the goal of collecƟng survey data to support the Community Police Oversight Commission’s (CPOC’s) work in examining community and officer aƫtudes toward the use of pretextual traffic stops in Pasadena.
Different survey solicitaƟon methods were used for officers versus community members. Two electronic solicitaƟons for the officer survey were sent to 226 email addresses for sworn members of the Pasadena Police Department (five of those email addresses bounced back as invalid). Forty-seven officers responded to the survey between August 7, 2025, and October 17, 2025, resulƟng in a response rate of 21%. Given the low response rate, data relaƟng to the officers’ background and demographic characterisƟcs were not included in this report in order to protect their idenƟty.
To collect surveys from the public, the CPOC elected to post an open survey link on their website that community members could use to complete the survey. The CPOC solicited parƟcipaƟon by posƟng informaƟon to their website, issuing a press release, placing informaƟonal flyers around the community, and by word of mouth. The survey was available in both English and Spanish. Altogether, 161 community members responded to the survey between October 8, 2025, and December 5, 2025 (160 in English and one in Spanish). It is not possible to calculate a response rate for the community survey since it was delivered via an open survey link. Please see Appendix B for a summary of the demographic and background characterisƟcs of the community members who responded to the survey.
Survey Design
The instruments for the officer and community surveys were similar, though there were some important differences (See Appendix C for copies of the unformaƩed survey instruments). For the community survey, the first secƟon contained a descripƟon of the project, informed consent language, definiƟons relaƟng to pretextual and traffic enforcement stops, and the researcher’s contact informaƟon. The second secƟon asked community members about their views relaƟng to the police, whether they had previous contact with a PPD officer, whether they or a family member or close friend had been pulled over by a PPD officer recently, and what their experience was like during their most recent traffic stop (if they indicated they had been pulled over). The third secƟon asked community respondents to indicate whether they believed they had experienced a pretextual stop and why. The fourth secƟon asked respondents to discuss the potenƟal benefits and/or problems associated with pretextual stops. The fiŌh secƟon 73 of 137
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
50 included items asking about their support for the reform of pretextual stops. The final secƟon included quesƟons designed to measure the respondents’ demographic characterisƟcs.
For the officer survey, the first secƟon contained a descripƟon of the project, informed consent language, definiƟons relaƟng to pretextual and traffic enforcement stops, and contact informaƟon for the researcher. The second secƟon asked about how oŌen they conduct different kinds of traffic stops in their current assignment. The third secƟon included two open- ended items designed to measure the circumstances under which the officer may conduct pretextual traffic stops. The fourth secƟon asked officers to discuss the potenƟal benefits and/or problems associated with pretextual stops. The fiŌh secƟon included items that asked about their support for the reform of pretextual stops. The final secƟon included quesƟons about the officers’ occupaƟonal and demographic characterisƟcs.
Important Data LimitaƟons
While these surveys provide useful informaƟon about the aƫtudes of the community members and officers who responded to the surveys, it is crucial to note that the project data has some important limitaƟons. First, probability sampling methods (e.g., a simple random sample) were not used to select the samples for either survey. Second, the sample size was small for both surveys. Finally, this project explores a controversial topic (i.e., pretext stops), which raises the possibility that some potenƟal respondents were unwilling to respond to the survey (called nonresponse bias). As a result, we cannot assume the aƫtudinal data reported here are representaƟve of the aƫtudes held by either the wider Pasadena community or populaƟon of officers who work for the Pasadena Police Department.
74 of 137
APPENDIX C
51 APPENDIX B
COMMUNITY DEMOGRAPHICS
This appendix reports demographic and aƫtudinal informaƟon for community members who responded to the survey. These data can provide some contextual informaƟon about the respondents to the survey and allow some insight into the respondents’ aƫtudes toward the Pasadena Police Department, whether they live or work in Pasadena, and their demographic characterisƟcs.
COMMUNITY RESPONDENT RELATIONSHIP TO PASADENA
One important issue in the delivery of the survey was whether the respondents had a personal connecƟon to the city of Pasadena. Overall, most respondents who completed the survey indicated that they lived (or lived previously) in Pasadena, while a similarly large proporƟon indicated that they either work or visit Pasadena regularly.
Table B1: Do you currently live in Pasadena?
Response Percent n
Yes 86% 117
No 6% 8
No, but I lived in Pasadena
previously 8% 11
Total 100% 136
Table B2: Do you currently work in or visit Pasadena on a regular basis?
Response Percent n
Yes 83% 111
No 11% 14
No, but I worked previously in
Pasadena 6% 8
Total 100% 133
75 of 137
APPENDIX C
52 COMMUNITY RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS
In order to provide context for the community response to the survey, the quesƟonnaire asked respondents provide informaƟon about some of their demographic characterisƟcs.
Respondent Age
There was a fairly wide age distribuƟon
among the community respondents,
though very few young community
members responded to the survey (i.e.,
less than 2% of the respondents we under
the age of 24). The median age for the
respondents fell somewhere between the
ages of 45 and 54.
Respondent Gender
The respondents were split preƩy evenly
between men and women.
Table B3: In which category is your age?
Response Percent n
Under 18 0% 0
18 - 24 2% 2
25 - 34 12% 16
35 - 44 20% 26
45 - 54 20% 26
55 - 64 23% 30
65 - 74 18% 24
75 - 84 7% 9
85 or older 0% 0
Total 100% 133
Table B4: Gender: How do you identify?
Response Percent n
Woman 44% 60
Man 45% 61
Transgender/Trans Woman 0% 0
Transgender/ Trans Man 1% 1
Non-Binary / Third Gender 1% 1
Prefer not to say 7% 9
Other Response 2% 3
Total 100% 135
Table Notes: Three respondents offered comments that were unrelated to their gender. These responses were grouped into the "other" category.
76 of 137
APPENDIX C
53 Respondent Race/Ethnicity
Overall, a plurality of the respondents idenƟfied as White, while a more than one-fiŌh of the respondents idenƟfied as Black/African American (23%) or Hispanic/LaƟno (22%).
Table B5: How would you describe your race? (Check all that apply)
Response Percent n
American Indian or Alaska Native 4% 5
Asian or Asian American 6% 8
Black or African American 23% 31
Hispanic or Latino 22% 29
Middle Eastern or North African 2% 2
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 1% 1
White 44% 58
Other 9% 12
Table notes: 133 unique respondents responded to this question. 77 of 137
APPENDIX C
UNFORMATTED COMMUNITY INSTRUMENT—ENGLISH
78 of 137
Pasadena Community Pretextual Stop Survey
Thank you for taking the time to fill out this survey. The purpose of this questionnaire is to collect information about the community's views regarding the use of "pretextual traffic stops" by Pasadena’s police officers.
A pretextual traffic stop is when a police officer pulls someone over for a minor traffic or equipment violation to try and find evidence of another more serious crime.
An example of a pretextual stop could be when a police officer pulls someone over for a broken taillight in order to investigate a hunch that the person has illegal drugs or firearms in the car.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that pretextual traffic stops are legal as long as the officer has a valid reason for the initial stop, such as observing a traffic violation (Whren v. United States).
It is important to note that there are other kinds of traffic enforcement stops that are not pretextual stops. A second kind of stop is when a police officer observes a traffic violation and pulls a vehicle over with the intent of enforcing traffic laws and ensuring public safety. This kind of traffic stop is different from a pretextual traffic stop because the officer's initial intent is different between the two types of stops.
The City of Pasadena's Community Police Oversight Commission is collecting information about the first kind of traffic stop noted above, which are called police pretextual stops
. Their goal is to make
recommendations to the Police Chief, City Manager, and City Council about how to improve police practices in Pasadena.
If you agree to participate in this survey, we will ask you questions about your views on both traffic enforcement stops and pretextual stops, the experiences you may have had with the Pasadena Police Department, and your background characteristics. This survey will take approximately 10 - 15 minutes to complete. Your answers will be entirely voluntary and confidential, and you can withdraw at any time.
You are free to skip any questions you choose. We believe there are no known risks associated with this research study.
If you would like to speak to the Community Police Oversight Commission about their work, please email [email protected].
If you have questions about this survey or have a research-related comment, please contact Dr. Joseph De Angelis by email at Community Pretextual Stop Survey--English
79 of 137
[email protected].
Pasadena Community Pretextual Stop Survey
In this section, we would like to ask you a few questions about your views in relation to the Pasadena Police Department, overall.
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Pasadena police
officers treat people
fairly.
Pasadena police
officers treat people
with respect.
Pasadena police
officers are
trustworthy.
Pasadena police
officers listen to
people before
making decisions.
Pasadena police
officers try to do
what is best for
people.
1. Please rate your agreement with the following statements.
Pasadena Community Pretextual Stop Survey
In this section, we would like to ask you a few questions about your recent experiences with the Pasadena Police Department.
2. Have you had any contact with a member of the Pasadena Police Department recently? Yes, in the last three years
Yes, but it has been more than three years
No
Not sure
80 of 137
3. Have you been pulled over by the Pasadena Police Department recently? Yes, in the last three years
Yes, but it has been more than three years
No
Not sure
Pasadena Community Pretextual Stop Survey
4. Approximately how many times have you been pulled over by a Pasadena Police Officer in the last three years?
1 time
2-3 times
4-5 times
6 or more times
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
The police officer
treated me with
respect.
The police officer
was fair.
The police officer
listened to what I
had to say.
The officer was
professional.
The police officer
explained why I was
pulled over.
5. Thinking about the last time you were pulled over by a Pasadena Police officer, please rate your agreement with the following statements.
6. In your own words, please tell us about what your traffic stop experiences have been like with the Pasadena Police Department, in general.
Pasadena Community Pretextual Stop Survey
81 of 137
7. Have you had a family member or close friend tell you that they were recently pulled over by a Pasadena Police officer?
Yes, in the last three years
Yes, but it has been more than three years
No
Not sure
Pasadena Community Pretextual Stop Survey
In this section, we would like to ask you a few questions about your experience with pretextual traffic stops.
8. Do you believe that you have experienced a pretextual traffic stop with a Pasadena Police Officer? Just as a reminder, a pretextual traffic stop occurs when a police officer pulls someone over for a minor traffic or equipment violation to try and find evidence of another more serious crime.
Yes
No
Not sure
Pasadena Community Pretextual Stop Survey
9. Why do you believe that you experienced a pretextual traffic stop? Pasadena Community Pretextual Stop Survey
10. Do you see any benefits to the use of pretextual stops by the Pasadena Police Department? Please explain.
82 of 137
11. Do you see any problems with the use of pretextual stops by the Pasadena Police Department? Please explain.
Pasadena Community Pretextual Stop Survey
12. In some cities, community members have raised concerns about the potential role of bias in the use of pretextual stops by law enforcement. Do you have any concerns about officer bias in the use of pretextual stops? Please explain.
Pasadena Community Pretextual Stop Survey
Some communities in the United States have sought to limit the use of pretextual traffic stops by law enforcement. In this section, we would like to ask you a few questions about your views on efforts to reform the use of pretextual stops.
13. How strongly do you support efforts to reform the use of pretextual stops in Pasadena?
Strongly Support
Support
Neutral
Oppose
Strongly Oppose
14. In your view, is it possible to reform the use of pretextual stops in a way that responds to community concerns while also allowing officers to act in the interest of public safety? Please explain.
Pasadena Community Pretextual Stop Survey
83 of 137
Strongly Support Support Neutral Oppose Strongly Oppose Prohibit officers
from pulling
motorists over for
minor traffic
offenses
Require officers to
record why they are
initiating a traffic
stop on their body
cameras
Create a policy
prohibiting the use
of pretextual traffic
stops, except when
there is a threat to
public safety
Ban officers from
conducting searches
during pretextual
stops
15. Please rate your level of support for the following policy reforms that have been used in other jurisdictions.
Pasadena Community Pretextual Stop Survey
16. Do you have any additional comments or views relating to pretextual stops that we did not ask you about but would like to share with us?
Pasadena Community Pretextual Stop Survey
In this section, we would like to ask you several questions about your background.
17. Do you currently live in Pasadena?
Yes
No
No, but I lived in Pasadena previously
84 of 137
18. Please enter the five-digit ZIP Code for your current primary residence below.
19. Do you currently work in or visit Pasadena on a regular basis? Yes
No
No, but I worked previously in Pasadena
Pasadena Community Pretextual Stop Survey
20. In which category is your age?
Under 18
18 - 24
25 - 34
35 - 44
45 - 54
55 - 64
65 - 74
75 - 84
85 or older
Pasadena Community Pretextual Stop Survey
21. Gender: How do you identify?
Woman
Man
Transgender/Trans Woman
Transgender/ Trans Man
Non-Binary / Third Gender
Prefer not to say
Prefer to self-describe below
85 of 137
22. How would you describe your race? (Check all that apply) American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian or Asian American
Black or African American
Hispanic or Latino
Middle Eastern or North African
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
White
Other (please specify)
Pasadena Community Pretextual Stop Survey
Please click "Done" to submit your responses. On behalf of the Community Police Oversight Commission, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts on pretextual stops and police officers in Pasadena. 86 of 137
APPENDIX D
UNFORMATTED COMMUNITY INSTRUMENT—SPANISH
87 of 137
Encuesta Sobre Paradas Pretextuales
Gracias por dedicar su tiempo a completar esta encuesta. El propósito de este cuestionario es obtener información sobre las opiniones comunitarias con respecto al uso de "paradas de tráfico pretextuales" por parte de los agentes de policía de Pasadena.
Paradas de tráfico pretextuales son cuando un oficial de policía detiene a alguien por infracciones menores de tráfico o de equipo para tratar de encontrar evidencia de otro crimen más grave.
Un ejemplo de una parada pretextual podría ser cuando un oficial de policía detiene a alguien por una luz trasera rota con el fin de investigar una “corazonada” o intuición sin evidencia, de que la persona tiene drogas ilegales o armas en el automóvil.
El Tribunal Supremo de EE.UU. dictó que las paradas de tráfico pretextuales son legales, siempre que, el agente tenga un motivo válido para la parada inicial, como observar una infracción de tráfico (Whren contra Estados Unidos).
Es importante señalar que hay otros tipos de identificaciones de tráfico que no son identificaciones pretextuales.
Otro tipo de parada se produce cuando un agente de policía observa una infracción de tráfico y detiene un vehículo con la intención de hacer cumplir las leyes de tráfico y garantizar la seguridad pública. Este tipo de parada de tráfico es diferente de una parada de tráfico pretextual porque la intención inicial del oficial es diferente entre los dos tipos de paradas.
La Comisión de Supervisión de la Policía Comunitaria de la ciudad de Pasadena está recopilando información sobre el primer tipo de paradas de tráfico mencionadas anteriormente, que se denominan paradas policiales con pretexto. El objetivo de la Comisión es hacer recomendaciones al Jefe de Policía, Director Municipal y al Consejo Municipal sobre cómo mejorar las prácticas policiales en Pasadena.
Si está de acuerdo en participar en esta encuesta, le haremos preguntas sobre su opinión acerca de las paradas de tráfico y las paradas pretextuales, las experiencias que ha tenido con el Departamento de Policía de Pasadena, y sus características personales. Completar esta encuesta le llevará aproximadamente entre 10 y 15 minutos. Sus respuestas serán totalmente voluntarias y anónimas, y podrá retirarse en cualquier momento. Puede omitir las preguntas que desee. No registraremos su dirección IP individual cuando rellene la encuesta. Los datos resultantes se almacenarán tras un cortafuegos de red seguro. Tenemos confianza que no existen riesgos asociados en participar en este estudio de investigación.
Si desea hablar con la Comisión de Supervisión de la Policía Comunitaria sobre su trabajo, envíe un correo electrónico a [email protected] . Si tiene preguntas
sobre este estudio o algún comentario relacionado con la investigación, póngase en contacto con el Dr. Joseph De Angelis por correo electrónico en [email protected]
.
Community Pretextual Stop Survey--Spanish
88 of 137
Encuesta Sobre Paradas Pretextuales
En esta sección, le haremos algunas preguntas sobre su opinión en relación con el Departamento de Policía de Pasadena, en general.
Totalmente de
Acuerdo De Acuerdo Neutral En Desacuerdo
Totalmente en
Desacuerdo
Los policías de
Pasadena tratan a la
gente con justicia.
Los policías de
Pasadena tratan a la
gente con respeto.
Los policías de
Pasadena son dignos
de confianza.
Los policías de
Pasadena escuchan a
la gente antes de
tomar decisiones.
Los policías de
Pasadena intentan
hacer lo mejor para
la gente.
1. Por favor, califique su acuerdo con las siguientes afirmaciones. 89 of 137
Encuesta Sobre Paradas Pretextuales
En esta sección, nos gustaría hacerle algunas preguntas sobre sus experiencias recientes con el Departamento de Policía de Pasadena.
2. ¿Ha tenido algún contacto con algún miembro del Departamento de Policía de Pasadena recientemente?
Sí, en los últimos tres años
Sí, pero han pasado más de tres años
No
No estoy seguro/a
3. ¿Le ha parado recientemente el Departamento de Policía de Pasadena? Sí, en los últimos tres años
Sí, pero han pasado más de tres años
No
No estoy seguro/a
90 of 137
Encuesta Sobre Paradas Pretextuales
4. ¿Aproximadamente cuántas veces le ha parado un agente de policía de Pasadena en los últimos tres años?
1 vez
2-3 veces
4-5 veces
6 o más veces
Totalmente de
Acuerdo De Acuerdo Neutral En Desacuerdo
Totalmente en
Desacuerdo
El oficial de policía
me trató con
respeto.
El oficial de policía
fue justo.
El oficial escucho lo
que tuve que decir.
El oficial era
profesional.
El policía me explicó
por qué me habían
parado.
5. Pensando en la última vez que le paró un agente de policía de Pasadena, por favor, valore su acuerdo con las siguientes afirmaciones.
6. En sus propias palabras, por favor cuéntenos cómo han sido sus experiencias en las paradas de tráfico con el Departamento de Policía de Pasadena, en general.
91 of 137
Encuesta Sobre Paradas Pretextuales
7. ¿Le ha comunicado algún familiar o amigo cercano que ha sido detenido recientemente por un agente de policía de Pasadena?
Sí, en los últimos tres años
Sí, pero han pasado más de tres años
No
No estoy seguro/a
92 of 137
Encuesta Sobre Paradas Pretextuales
En esta sección, nos gustaría hacerle algunas preguntas sobre su experiencia con las identificaciones de tráfico pretextuales.
8. ¿Cree usted que ha experimentado una parada de tráfico pretextual con un oficial de policía de Pasadena? Como recordatorio, paradas de tráfico pretextuales son cuando un oficial de policía detiene a alguien por infracciones menores de tráfico o de equipo para tratar de encontrar evidencia de otro crimen más grave.
Si
No
¿No está seguro/a?
93 of 137
Encuesta Sobre Paradas Pretextuales
9. ¿Por qué cree que fue objeto de una parada de tráfico con pretexto? 94 of 137
Encuesta Sobre Paradas Pretextuales
10. ¿Ve algún beneficio en el uso de paradas pretextuales por parte del Departamento de Policía de Pasadena? Explíquelo, por favor.
11. ¿Ve algún problema en el uso de paradas pretextuales por parte del Departamento de Policía de Pasadena? Explíquelo, por favor. 95 of 137
Encuesta Sobre Paradas Pretextuales
12. En algunas ciudades, los miembros de la comunidad han expresado su preocupación por el posible efecto de la parcialidad en el uso de paradas pretextuales por parte de las fuerzas del orden. ¿Le preocupa la inparcialidad de los agentes en el uso de paradas pretextuales? Explíquelo, por favor. 96 of 137
Encuesta Sobre Paradas Pretextuales
Algunas comunidades de Estados Unidos han intentado limitar el uso de identificaciones de tráfico pretextuales por parte de los agentes de policía. En esta sección, nos gustaría hacerle algunas preguntas sobre su opinión acerca de los esfuerzos para reformar el uso de las identificaciones pretextuales.
13. ¿En qué medida apoya los esfuerzos para reformar el uso de las paradas pretextuales en Pasadena?
Apoyo totalmente
Apoyo
Neutral
En Oposición
Totalmente en Oposición
14. En su opinión, ¿es posible reformar el uso de paradas pretextuales de forma que responda a las preocupaciones de la comunidad y al mismo tiempo permita a los agentes contribuir a mantener la seguridad pública? Por favor, explíquelo.
97 of 137
Encuesta Sobre Paradas Pretextuales
Apoyo Decidido Apoyo Neutral En Oposición
Totalmente en
Oposición
Prohibir que los
agentes de policía
detengan a los
automovilistas por
infracciones de
tráfico leves
Requerir a los
agentes de policía
que graben en sus
cámaras corporales
el motivo por el que
inician una parada
de tráfico.
Crear una política
que prohíba el uso
de paradas de tráfico
pretextuales,
excepto cuando
exista una amenaza
para la seguridad
pública.
Prohibición de que
los agentes efectúen
registros durante
paradas
pretextuales.
15. Por favor, valore su nivel de apoyo a las siguientes reformas políticas que se han utilizado en otras jurisdicciones.
98 of 137
Encuesta Sobre Paradas Pretextuales
16. ¿Tiene algún comentario u opinión adicional en relación con las paradas pretextuales sobre el que no le hayamos preguntado pero que quiera compartir con nosotros?
99 of 137
Encuesta Sobre Paradas Pretextuales
En esta sección nos gustaría hacerle varias preguntas sobre sus antecedentes.
17. ¿Vive actualmente en Pasadena??
Si
No
No, pero viví en Pasadena anteriormente.
18. Ingrese el código postal de cinco dígitos de su residencia principal actual a continuación.
19. ¿Trabaja o visita regularmente Pasadena??
Si
No
No, pero trabajé anteriormente en Pasadena
100 of 137
Encuesta Sobre Paradas Pretextuales
20. ¿Qué edad tiene aproximadamente?
Menos de 18 años
18 - 24
25 - 34
35 - 44
45 - 54
55 - 64
65 - 74
75 - 84
85 años o más
101 of 137
Encuesta Sobre Paradas Pretextuales
21. Género: ¿Cómo te identificas?
Mujer
Hombre
Transgénero/ Mujer trans
Transgénero / Hombre trans
No binario / Tercer género
Prefer not to say
Si prefiere autodescribirse, descríbalo a continuación:
22. ¿Cómo describiría su raza? (Marque todo lo que se aplique) Indio Americano o Nativo de Alaska
Asiático
Negro o Afroamericano
Hispano o Latino
Oriente Medio o Norte de África
Nativo de Hawai o de las Islas del Pacífico
Blanco
Otro
102 of 137
Encuesta Sobre Paradas Pretextuales
Haga clic a continuación para enviar sus respuestas. De parte de La Comisión Comunitaria de Supervisión Policial, muchas gracias por tomar el tiempo de compartir sus opiniones sobre las paradas pretextuales y los agentes de policía en Pasadena.
103 of 137
APPENDIX E
UNFORMATTED OFFICER INSTRUMENT
104 of 137
Pasadena Officer Pretextual Stop Survey
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this survey. The purpose of this study is to examine your views on the use of pretextual traffic stops in law enforcement. If you agree to participate in this survey, we will ask you a series of questions about your views regarding the benefits and drawbacks of pretextual traffic stops, your views about efforts to reform the use of pretextual stops, and your background characteristics.
This survey will take approximately 15 minutes to complete. Your answers will be entirely voluntary and anonymous, and you can withdraw at any time. You are free to skip any questions you choose. The researchers will not record or connect any identifying information to the answers you give on the survey. For example, the researchers will not attach your email or IP address to the completed survey instrument. The resulting data will be stored behind a secure network firewall and the raw survey data will not be shared outside of the research team. We believe there are no known risks associated with this research study.
If you have questions about this study or have a research-related comment, please contact Dr. Joseph DeAngelis by email at [email protected] or 740-707-5208.
Pasadena Officer Pretextual Stop Survey
Officer Pretextual Stop Survey--Unformatted
105 of 137
In this first section, we would like to ask you questions about your views on pretextual traffic stops. In the following questions, it is important to differentiate pretextual traffic stops from other types of traffic stops.
1. Pretextual traffic stops are defined as traffic stops where an officer pulls over a vehicle for a minor traffic infraction as a pretext to investigate other suspected criminal activity unrelated to the observed traffic violation.
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, this type of traffic stop is legal as long as an officer has a valid reason, such as observing a traffic violation, regardless of the officer's underlying motive or intent to investigate other suspected criminal activities (Whren v. United States).
2. Enforcement Stops for Violations: Many traffic stops occur when an officer observes a driver commit a traffic violation, such as speeding, running a red light, or failing to use a turn signal. These types of stops are not initiated for pretextual reasons. Instead, the officer’s primary intent is to enforce traffic laws and ensure public safety. Traffic stops by police officers may evolve into broader investigations if new information or evidence of criminal activity is discovered during the stop. This differs from a pretextual traffic stop, as the officer's intent prior to the stop is distinct.
In this survey, most of the questions ask you about your views regarding pretextual traffic stops.
Very frequently Frequently Occasionally Rarely Never
Conduct traffic stops
of any type during a
typical shift?
Initiate pretextual
traffic stops during a
typical shift?
1. In your current assignment, how often do you:
Pasadena Officer Pretextual Stop Survey
2. Please describe briefly the most common circumstances under which you might conduct a pretextual traffic stop?
106 of 137
3. If you are unlikely to use pretextual stops, can you briefly explain why? Pasadena Officer Pretextual Stop Survey
4. Based on your experience as a police officer, what do you see as the benefits of pretextual stops?
5. What do you see as the drawbacks to using pretextual stops?
6. Some community members have raised concerns about the potential role of bias in the use of pretextual stops by law enforcement. Do you have any concerns about officer bias playing a role in pretextual stops? Please explain briefly.
Pasadena Officer Pretextual Stop Survey
Some jurisdictions in the United States have experienced community discontent and sought to limit the use of pretextual traffic stops by law enforcement. In this section, we would like to ask you a few questions about your views on efforts to reform the use of pretextual stops. 107 of 137
Strongly Support Support Neutral Oppose Strongly Oppose Prohibit officers
from pulling
motorists over for
minor traffic
offenses
Require officers to
record why they are
initiating a traffic
stop on their body
cameras
Create a policy
prohibiting the use
of pretextual traffic
stops, except when
there is a threat to
public safety
Ban officers from
conducting searches
during pretextual
stops
7. Please rate your level of support for the following policy reforms that have been used in other jurisdictions.
Pasadena Officer Pretextual Stop Survey
8. How strongly do you support efforts to reform the use of pretextual stops in Pasadena? Strongly Support
Support
Neutral
Oppose
Strongly Oppose
9. In your view, is it possible to reform the use of pretextual stops in a way that responds to community concerns while also allowing officers to act in the interest of public safety? Please explain.
Pasadena Officer Pretextual Stop Survey
108 of 137
10. What impact would banning the use of pretextual stops have on your work as a police officer? Please explain.
11. Do you have any additional comments or views relating to pretextual stops that we did not ask you about but that you would like to share with us? Pasadena Officer Pretextual Stop Survey
In this section, we would like to ask you several questions about your background.
12. What is your current rank?
Officer
Detective
Sergeant
Lieutenant or Higher
Other
13. How many years have you served as a sworn officer with the Pasadena Police Department?
1 year or less
2 - 5 years
6 - 10 years
11 - 15 years
16 or more years
14. In which category is your age?
21 - 30
31 - 40
41- 50
51 - 60
61 or older
109 of 137
Pasadena Officer Pretextual Stop Survey
15. What is your gender?
Woman
Man
Other
Prefer not to reply
16. How would you describe your race? (Check all that apply) American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian or Asian American
Black or African American
Hispanic or Latino
Middle Eastern or North African
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
White
Other (please specify)
Pasadena Officer Pretextual Stop Survey
Please click "Done" to submit your answers. Thank you for taking the time to share your views about pretextual stops.
110 of 137
Attachment D -
Traffic Stop Policy
Recommendations
111 of 137
TO: Pretext Stop Ad Hoc Committee, Community Police Oversight Commission
FROM: Teresa Magula, Independent Police Auditor
DATE: May 1, 2025
RE: Possible Recommendations for the Pasadena Police Department Regarding Tactics During Traffic Stops
Introduction
At its April 10, 2025, meeting, the Community Police Oversight Commission (CPOC) directed the Independent Police Auditor (IPA) and the Pretext Stop Ad Hoc Committee to develop recommendations for the Pasadena Police Department regarding traffic stops and/or the use of pretext stops, including providing a rationale statement for the recommendation.
The following recommendations were prepared by the IPA and the Pretext Stop Ad Hoc Committee. These suggestions reflect ideas raised during the Committee’s work over the past year, which included monthly meetings, a community and officer survey conducted by Drs. Richard Rosenthal and Joseph DeAngelis in late 2024, and community meetings hosted by the Ad Hoc Committee. Several of these were discussed during the April 10 CPOC meeting by members of the larger body.
These recommendations do not represent the full range of potential actions related to traffic stops.
6510 Spring Street #613
Long Beach, CA 90815
323-821-0586
OIRGroup.com
112 of 137
OIR Group - Pretextual Stop Recommendations
Proposed Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION 1: The Pasadena Police Department should issue a written directive limiting the practice of curb-sitting, also referred to as "curbing," during investigative detentions. If curb-sitting is used, officers shall document the nature of the contact and the circumstances that required them to place a subject on the curb in their related report.
RATIONALE:
Generally speaking, “Curb-sitting,” also referred to as “curbing” or “seated investigative detentions,” refers to the act of having a suspect sit on the curb, typically during a detention, to reduce their mobility and perceived threat. The use of "curb sitting" during police stops has raised community concerns: though intended to enhance officer safety, the tactic is frequently perceived as demeaning—particularly when used without clear justification or in public view. While post-stop practices like curb-sitting are rarely individually documented or tracked, multiple studies indicate that persons of color are disproportionately subjected to more intrusive police actions during stops, which can include practices like curb-sitting. These practices contribute to perceptions of racial profiling and deepen mistrust, especially when they are applied inconsistently or without accountability.
In 2005, PPD issued a Chief’s Bulletin – Directive 2005-006, “The Practice of Curb- Sitting” -- regarding limitations on the use of curb-sitting, which the Department may choose to update and re-issue. The Ad Hoc Committee and the IPA also drafted sample language for consideration (see Appendices A and B).
RECOMMENDATION 2: The Pasadena Police Department should update its RIPA collection form to require that officers specifically document all instances of curb-sitting [as distinct from the current data point: “detained curbside or in the back of a police vehicle”].
RATIONALE:
Under the 2015 California Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA), law enforcement officers are required to document specific actions taken during stops. This includes any 113 of 137
OIR Group - Pretextual Stop Recommendations
action that impacts the individual's freedom of movement. Currently, the RIPA data form offers the checkbox: “detained curbside or in the back of a police vehicle,” but does not capture the practice of curb-sitting explicitly. As such, it is not possible to quantify PPD’s use of this practice at this time.
Adding a specific checkbox to indicate if curb-sitting was used during a stop will allow PPD to quantify the use of this practice and more carefully evaluate its effectiveness, necessity, and, most importantly, the circumstances under which it is used. Analysis of this data may indicate that the practice is not used or is used in very limited and appropriate circumstances, and, as such, that no intervention(s), such as policy changes, are required. Conversely, it may show unnecessary use cases.
In the 2024 community survey regarding traffic stops, a majority of community respondents recommended that PPD should engage in enhanced data collection on traffic stops. This recommendation would be responsive to that finding.
RECOMMENDATION 3: The Pasadena Police Department and the Independent Police Auditor should collaborate to analyze data, including police reports, RIPA, and other data sets relevant to traffic stops and stop outcomes to better inform future policy, procedure and training, on an annual basis.
RATIONALE:
The state already mandates data collection on stops through the Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA). Should PPD adopt Recommendation #1, officers will document instances of curb-sitting in their police reports. Analyzing PPD’s various data sets at different operational levels could provide insight into traffic stop decision-making, stop patterns, post-stop actions, address concerns of disproportionality, and increase accountability.
This analysis should carefully consider compounding variables that may affect statistical outcomes, such as variability across shifts and geographic locations, crimes rates, the nature of the call (e.g., call for service versus officer-initiated), and other factors. Should PPD adopt this recommendation, it is important that officer assignments also be considered, because officers in specialized units—such as gang enforcement, narcotics, or high-crime area patrols—might be expected to engage in more frequent stops or arrests, and their activity levels differ significantly from those in administrative or community-based roles.
114 of 137
OIR Group - Pretextual Stop Recommendations
PPD might also consider a geospatial analysis to identify possibly problematic “hot spots” in Pasadena that have higher stop rates or higher disproportionality.
While PPD did not fully report RIPA data in 2024, it could start to assess its 2025 data set.
115 of 137
OIR Group - Pretextual Stop Recommendations
APPENDIX A: Sample Text for a Written Directive Regarding Curb-Sitting
This language was drafted based on the Eureka Police Department’s Training Bulletin:
“High-Risk Traffic Stops” and the San Diego Police Department’s 2014 Training Bulletin TB 14-03: “Curb-Sitting as a Control Technique / Defensive Tactic.”
To maximize officer safety and tactical control during enforcement or investigative stops, officers should consider positioning subjects in a manner that reduces their ability to act unpredictably or evade control. When there is no clear justification, known information, or cause to handcuff or secure individuals in a patrol vehicle, officers should direct subjects to remain seated in their vehicle, stand in place, or lean against a patrol unit or other stable surface.
In circumstances where an articulable threat exists, officers may temporarily instruct individuals to sit on the curb. This position should only be used when less intrusive alternatives are insufficient and should be immediately discontinued once the risk level is reduced, such as upon the arrival of additional units. Officers shall clearly articulate and document the specific facts and observations that justified the use of this tactic in a related report. Generalized statements such as “for officer safety” are not sufficient justification without supporting detail.
Officers are reminded that all public contacts may be observed and interpreted by members of the community. To maintain public trust and minimize community concern, officers should exercise this tactic with discretion, professionalism, and clear communication. Respectful and courteous engagement can help mitigate negative perceptions and reinforce the legitimacy of police actions.
116 of 137
OIR Group - Pretextual Stop Recommendations
APPENDIX B: Directive 2005-006, “The Practice of Curb-Sitting”
117 of 137
August 2, 2005
TO: All Concerned
FROM: Bernard K. Melekian
Chief of Police
RE: Chief’s Operational Order #2005-07
(The Practice of “Curbing”)
It has become a practice by some employees that while conducting pedestrian or traffic stops, people are being forced to sit on the curb for the duration of the stop. The rationale for this practice seems to focus on officer safety, the opinion being that an individual seated on the curb is less threatening than an individual left standing.
Officers may be given a false sense of safety when a person is seated. Even though a pat - down search should be conducted prior to having the person(s) sit-on-the curb, this does not always occur. Further, requiring people to sit on the curb, particularly for lengthy periods of time or when there are a number of officers present can be humiliating.
There are certain legal requirements that must be present if curbing is to be justified. “Curbing” restricts a person’s freedom of movement and therefore becomes a detention. In order for a detention to be lawful, it must be based upon reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is based upon a reasonable police officer using his/her knowledge, training and experience and determining that criminal activity may have occurred.
Such detentions must be for a reasonable period of time. Officers should also bear in mind that people do not have to comply with a directive to sit on the curb. If the person does not wish to be seated on the curb, and the situation warrants it, the person should then be directed to sit in the car.
Careful consideration should be given as to when & why a person is being asked to sit on the curb. The following basic criteria to consider is predicated on reasonable suspicion rules and factors to consider before having a person sit on the curb.
1. Nature of the Contact
a) Consensual contact – The subject(s) is free to leave at anytime. Curbing would not be lawful
b) Lawful Detention – There is reasonable suspicion to detain the person and there are articulable officer safety concerns.
Curbing may be reasonable.
c) Arrest situation – There is probable cause to arrest the person(s).
Curbing may be reasonable.
118 of 137
2. Number of people and the number of officers present.
3. Time of day.
4. Location of the stop.
5. Does the subject(s) pose a credible threat to officer safety, which would reasonably lead an officer to believe the person is a potential threat to officer or others.
a) Past history of violence to others
b) Aggravated actions by the person prior to or during the detention.
6. Mere gang affiliation is not enough to justify having a person sit on the curb.
If during a stop there is justification to have people sit on the curb, the Officer will minimize the length of time the person is required to remain seated. Once the situation is controlled, the person will be offered the opportunity to stand until the detention is completed.
If a person has been asked to sit on the curb and is not subsequently arrested or issued a citation, a Field Interview Card shall be completed. The card should indicate CURBED in bold letters.
Supervisors will be responsible for monitoring persons who are sitting on the curb. The supervisor should determine the reason and ensure that the time has not become excessive.
Two of the core values of the Pasadena Police Department are, “We believe in the personal touch” and “how we get the job done is as important as getting the job done.” These values mean that we recognize the dignity of all people and approach our delivery of service in a humane manner. This organizational culture should manifest itself by treating those we contact the same way we would expect to be treated under similar circumstances.
BKM: rl
119 of 137
Attachment E -
Community-Police
Mediation Policy
120 of 137
Policy
1022
Pasadena Police Department
Policy Manual
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2024/07/30, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Pasadena Police Department ***DRAFT*** Community Mediation Program - 1 Community Mediation Program
1022.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This policy provides a process to resolve disputes or concerns between complainants and Pasadena Police Department employees through the mediation process. 1022.2 DEFINITIONS
Mediation is a voluntary process designed to resolve disputes through negotiation and constructive communication with the assistance of a trained neutral party mediator. It is an informal, non- disciplinary and non-adversarial process, agreed to by both the complainant(s) and member(s) of the Pasadena Police Department.
The mediation process usually focuses on conflict resolution of externally generated complaints; however, the process may be used to resolve conflicts between members of the PPD. 1022.3 OBJECTIVES
(a) To increase the satisfaction of community and Department members in the resolution of the public's complaints;
(b) To foster understanding and open communication between parties in a neutral setting; (c) To promote effective police/community partnerships, and (d) To develop problem-solving opportunities.
1022.4 USE OF MEDIATION
(a) The Administrative Services lieutenant will evaluate complaints to determine if they are eligible for mediation. Complaints eligible for mediation will be given a mediation case number. The Administrative Services lieutenant will evaluate the complaint based upon the case and Department member eligibility, and will confer with the employee's Lieutenant or Section Administrator.
1. A complaint will be considered for mediation if it resulted from a failure to communicate or a lack of communication such that the allegation would be resolved better through mediation than through the formal disciplinary process.
In addition, a complaint that fails to state misconduct may merit a referral to mediation as a means of improving police community relations.
2. Any allegation of misconduct that falls into the following definition of serious misconduct is ineligible for mediation:
(a) Any violation of law, rule or policy which: foreseeably results in death or serious bodily injury; or constitutes a willful and wanton disregard of department values; or involves any act which demonstrates a serious lack of the integrity, ethics or character related to an officer's fitness to hold the position of police officer; or involves egregious misconduct substantially 121 of 137
Pasadena Police Department
Policy Manual
Community Mediation Program
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2024/07/30, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Pasadena Police Department ***DRAFT*** Community Mediation Program - 2 contrary to the standards of conduct reasonably expected of one whose sworn duty is to uphold the law.
3. Final authority on mediation eligibility: Even if a complaint is otherwise eligible for mediation, the Chief of Police, or designee, has the authority to decide for any reason that a case should not be assigned for mediation. (b) Post-investigative complaints- Generally, investigated complaints are reviewed by the employee's chain of command for findings and recommendations resulting in formal closure of the investigation. On a case-by-case basis, post-investigative complaints may be referred for resolution through mediation in lieu of a formal finding and recommendation upon closure. In such cases, the chain of command will not make a formal finding, but will complete the recommendation section referring the complaint to mediation. With the concurrence of the employee's Lieutenant or Section Administrator, the file will be returned to the Administrative Services Lieutenant who will make arrangements for a mediation referral.
(c) Employee eligibility- All personnel of the Pasadena Police Department are eligible for mediation. In determining eligibility, the Administrative Services Section will consider employees' previous mediations and the nature of the present allegation. 1022.5 MEDIATION PROCESS
(a) Once a complaint is determined to be eligible for mediation, the Administrative Services lieutenant or designee will refer the complaint to the mediation coordinator who will be responsible for contacting the complainant to determine if the complainant is willing to participate in the mediation process. The complainant will be specifically advised that if an offer to mediate is made to the involved Department employee(s) and that offer is accepted, the complaint will be considered to be resolved by mediation regardless of the ultimate outcome of the mediation process. (b) If the complainant is willing to participate, the mediation coordinator will transmit the offer to mediate to the involved Department employee(s). (c) If the involved Department employee(s) accept the offer to mediate, the mediation coordinator will contact the Department employee and the complainant to facilitate the mediation. The mediation coordinator will ensure that professionally trained and experienced mediators will be used.
(d) The scheduling of the mediation will take into account the mediators, complainants and employees' work schedule. Every effort will be made to schedule the mediation during a time convenient for the complainant. If the time does not fall within the employee's normal working hours, employees will be given overtime compensation in accordance with their Memorandum of Understanding. Every effort will be made to schedule and complete the mediation within 30 calendar days from the time a case is deemed suitable.
(e) To ensure neutrality, the mediation will take place at a location other than a police department facility.
(f) If the original contact between the Department member and the complainant took place while the Department member was in full uniform, the Department member will 122 of 137
Pasadena Police Department
Policy Manual
Community Mediation Program
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2024/07/30, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Pasadena Police Department ***DRAFT*** Community Mediation Program - 3 attend the mediation in full uniform. Otherwise, the Department member will attend the mediation in appropriate business attire, or an approved police department polo shirt and slacks.
(g) Once a Department member accepts a date and time for mediation, that member must appear on the scheduled date and time unless he or she received notification of a schedule change from the mediation coordinator, Administrative Services lieutenant or his or her designee.
(h) Employees who cannot attend mediation due to an illness or other emergency must notify the mediation coordinator and the Administrative Services Section lieutenant or his/her designee as soon as it is evident that they will not be able to appear. If the illness or emergency precludes the employee from making this notification, the employee's supervisor must do so.
(i) The complainant and the officer will sign the Confidentiality Agreement and Consent to Mediate document before the mediation commences.
(j) There will be no requirement that an agreement will be reached during the mediation.
The mediation is ultimately a facilitated conversation wherein all parties are given the opportunity to hear and be heard. Mediation has been established to increase complainant and officer satisfaction, regardless of whether an agreement is ultimately reached.
(k) Upon concluding a mediation session, or upon the complainant failing to appear for a mediation session without good cause or the complainant withdrawing from the mediation process, the mediator will deliver a "Statement of Outcome" to the Professional Standards Unit, classifying the complaint as having been "resolved through mediation." A complaint will be returned to the Professional Standards Unit for an investigation only if the involved employees fail to attend the mediation session without good cause.
(l) All communications made during the mediation process are confidential and cannot be used or referenced for any purposes outside of the mediation.Mediations will not be recorded in any fashion by any party.
1022.6 RESOLUTION
(a) Upon the mediator classifying the complaint as having been "resolved through mediation," the case will then be logged and tracked by the assigned mediation "M" number. Both parties will receive a letter outlining the resolution of the complaint and declaring the issue(s) fully resolved.
(b) The mediation file shall contain the following forms: original Complaint Control Form, Confidentiality Agreement, Consent to Mediate Form, and the Statement of Outcome.
Mediation files are confidential and governed by California Evidence Code Sections 1115-1128.
(c) Pursuant to P.C. 832.7, the original complaints will be maintained in the Professional Standards Unit for five years. The disposition for the original complaint will state that it was resolved through the mediation process and that as a result of the mediation process the complainant agreed to the dismissal of the complaint. 123 of 137
Pasadena Police Department
Policy Manual
Community Mediation Program
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2024/07/30, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Pasadena Police Department ***DRAFT*** Community Mediation Program - 4
1. All documents will be placed in a sealed envelope within the Internal Affairs file envelope. The envelope will be covered with the disposition memorandum indicating the complaint was dismissed.
(d) The confidentiality of mediations shall not preclude the Professional Standards Unit or the Independent Police Auditor from capturing general statistical information necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of the mediation process. (e) If a case is resolved through mediation, the original complaint will not be used against the officer for any disciplinary purposes, transfers, or promotions. Allegations of misconduct resolved through mediation will be considered "unfounded" for SB2 reporting.
(f) The Independent Police Auditor (IPA) for the City of Pasadena will periodically evaluate the effectiveness of the program in a written report to the Chief of Police and to the Community Police Oversight Commission. The methodology of the report will be consistent with General Auditing Standards and will be based on data collected from complainants, mediators and police officers that participated in the mediation process.
An annual "Mediation Effectiveness Report" will be published, however, the IPA may not publish any information that could be used to identify any specific participant in the process.
124 of 137
Attachment F -
Handling of Community
Complaints Rules and Regulations
125 of 137
Pursuant to ARTICLE XI of the Community Police Oversight Commission (CPOC) Rules and Regulations, which reads: “AMENDMENT OF RULES AND REGULATIONS SECTION 1: These rules may be proposed to be amended by a majority vote of the Commission, upon which the rules shall be submitted to the City Council for approval,” the following amendment concerning the CPOC’s handling of community complaints is proposed.
ARTICLE XII
HANDLING OF COMMUNITY COMPLAINTS
SECTION 1. Whereas the CPOC may receive complaints under Sec. 2.60.110(B)(1) of the Pasadena Municipal Code related to the Pasadena Police Department (PPD), the appropriate procedure for the handling of community complaints is as follows.
SECTION 2. In the event a community member or organization brings forward to the CPOC, or the Oversight Commission Support Division (OCSD), and/or the Independent Police Auditor (IPA), any allegation of misconduct by a PPD employee, OCSD staff will, as soon as possible, advise the complainant or complainant-organization as follows:
a. Neither the CPOC, OCSD, nor IPA has the jurisdiction to investigate or adjudicate a complaint of misconduct.
b. The complainant should file a timely complaint with the PPD through its website or by contacting the Professional Standards Unit.
c. Upon the filing of the complaint, the complainant will receive a Case Number from the PPD and will, pursuant to PPD policy, be advised of the result of the complaint.
d. If, upon receipt of the disposition of the complaint, the complainant is not satisfied with how the complaint was handled, the complainant may contact OCSD staff and request that the IPA audit the PPD’s handling of the complaint. e. The IPA will subsequently report back to the CPOC and the complainant on any findings, to the extent permissible by law.
SECTION 3. OCSD staff will, at the earliest opportunity, forward any complaint information to the IPA for their information and any appropriate action within the authority and jurisdiction of the IPA.
SECTION 4. No member of the CPOC or OCSD staff, nor the IPA, will evaluate the credibility or validity of any complaint of misconduct. Every complainant will be provided with the opportunity to decide whether to file a complaint with the PPD, regardless of the opinion of any Commissioner, OCSD staff member, or the IPA as to the validity of the complaint.
126 of 137
Attachment G -
Biannual Meeting of CPOC and
PPD Leadership Rules and
Regulations
127 of 137
Pursuant to ARTICLE XI of the Community Police Oversight Commission (CPOC) Rules and Regulations, which reads: “AMENDMENT OF RULES AND REGULATIONS SECTION 1: These rules may be proposed to be amended by a majority vote of the Commission, upon which the rules shall be submitted to the City Council for approval,” the following amendment concerning the biannual meeting of CPOC and Pasadena Police Department leadership is proposed.
ARTICLE XIII
BIANNUAL MEETING OF CPOC AND PPD LEADERSHIP
Section 1. To fulfill the purpose and functions of the Community Police Oversight Commission (CPOC) to enhance, develop, and strengthen community-police relations (as outlined in Pasadena Municipal Code Chapter 2.60.110), CPOC and Pasadena Police Department (PPD) leadership will meet at least biannually. a. Participants will include the CPOC Chair, Vice Chair, Independent Police Auditor (IPA), Oversight Commission Support Division staff, and the PPD Chief and Deputy Chief.
b. The biannual meetings will take place between October to November and April to May.
c. Discussion items will include, but are not limited to, the following:
i. The CPOC’s work plan, including topics and policy areas addressed by its ad hoc committees;
ii. Community outreach and education; and
iii. Strategies to further the purpose and functions of the CPOC as set forth in the applicable codes, rules, and regulations.
128 of 137
Attachment H -
CPOC Informational Flyer
129 of 137
Community Police Oversight Commission
C
reated in 2020, the Pasadena
Community Police Oversight
Commission (CPOC) works to
strengthen trust and transparency
between the community and the
Pasadena Police Department by making
recommendations to the Chief of Police,
City Manager, and City Council on police
operations and policies.
Who We Are
The CPOC includes 11 Pasadena residents:
one nominated by the Mayor, one by each
City Councilmember, and three by community
organizations.
The CPOC is supported by an Independent Police
Auditor (IPA), a public safety expert who has full
authority to review police complaints, internal
investigations, and all incidents involving the use of
force or firearms. This independent oversight helps
ensure issues are handled fairly, thoroughly, and
objectively.
Together, the CPOC and IPA make recommendations
to improve police policies, promoting a more
effective and accountable department.
What We’ve Done
Since its launch, the CPOC has made meaningful
progress, including:
•
Hosting community f
orums to gather input on
public safety issues.
•
R
eviewing incidents involving misconduct or
use of force.
•
Ev
aluating policies related to police
technology and equipment, like body-worn
cameras.
•
Creating an online track
er to monitor the
Police Department’s implementation of the
CPOC’s recommendations.
These efforts are part of our continued work to
ensure policing in Pasadena is fair, responsive, and
community-centered.
Join the Conversation
We invite you to attend our monthly meetings to
share your thoughts, ask questions, and learn
more about the work of the CPOC and the Police
Department.
Meeting Details
🗓 When: 2nd Thursday of each month at 6:00 PM
📍
Where:
P
asadena City Hall, Council Chambers
100 N. Garfield Avenue, Room S249
Pasadena, CA 91109
Learn More
Visit our website to view meeting agendas, sign up for updates, follow the Commission’s progress, or submit a police complaint or compliment.
Bit.ly/PasadenaCPOC
130 of 137
COMISIÓN COMUNITARIA DE SUPERVISIÓN DE LA POLICÍA
C
reada en 2020, la Comisión
Comunitaria de Supervisión de la
Policía (CPOC, por sus siglas en inglés)
trabaja para fortalecer la confianza y la
transparencia entre la comunidad y el
Departamento de Policía de Pasadena
haciendo recomendaciones al Jefe de
Policía, al Administrador de la Ciudad
y al Concejo de la Ciudad sobre las
operaciones y políticas de la Policía.
Quiénes somos
El CPOC está compuesto por 11 residentes de Pasadena:
uno nominado por el alcalde, uno por cada Concejal de
la Ciudad y tres por organizaciones comunitarias.
La CPOC cuenta con el apoyo de un Auditor
Independiente de la Policía (IPA, por sus siglas en
inglés), un experto en seguridad pública que tiene
plena autoridad para revisar las quejas sobre la policía, las investigaciones internas y todos los incidentes
relacionados con el uso de la fuerza o las armas
de fuego. Esta supervisión independiente ayuda a
garantizar que los asuntos se manejen de manera justa,
exhaustiva y objetiva.
Juntos, la CPOC y el IPA formulan recomendaciones
para mejorar las políticas policiales, promoviendo un
departamento más eficaz y responsable.
Qué hemos logrado
Desde su lanzamiento, la CPOC ha logrado avances
significativos, entre ellos:
•
Organizar f
oros comunitarios para recopilar
opiniones sobre temas relacionados con la
seguridad pública.
•
R
evisar incidentes que impliquen la mala
conducta o el uso de fuerza.
•
Ev
aluar las políticas relacionadas con la
tecnología y el equipo policial, como las
cámaras corporales.
•
Crear un rastreador en línea para monit
orear la
implementación de las recomendaciones de la
CPOC por parte del Departamento de Policía.
Esta labor es parte de nuestro trabajo continuo para
garantizar que la policía en Pasadena sea justa,
receptiva y centrada en la comunidad.
Únase a la conversación
Le invitamos a asistir a nuestras reuniones mensuales
para compartir sus opiniones, hacer preguntas
y aprender más sobre el trabajo de la CPOC y el
Departamento de Policía.
Detalles de la reunión
🗓 Cuándo: 2º jue ves de cada mes a las 6:00 PM
📍
Dónde:
A
yuntamiento de Pasadena,
Cámaras del Concejo
100 N. Garfield Avenue, Room S249
Pasadena, CA 91109
MÁS INFORMACIÓN
Visite nuestro sitio web para ver las agendas de las reuniones, inscribirse para recibir actualizaciones, seguir el progreso de la Comisión o presentar una queja o un comentario positivo sobre la policía.
Bit.ly/PasadenaCPOC
131 of 137
Attachment I -
Independent Police Auditor
"Meet-and-Greet" Event Flyers
132 of 137
COMMUNITY POLICE OVERSIGHT COMMISSION PRESENTS
MEET AND GREET WITH INDEPENDENT
POLICE AUDITOR tERESA mAGULA
Join us for an opportunity to
share your experiences, thoughts,
and concerns about police
accountability and the future of
policing in Pasadena.
WEDNESDAY , March 26, 6-8 P .M.
Robinson Park Recreation Center
1081 N. Fair Oaks Ave.
For more information or to request a
disability-related accommodation:
Call (626) 744-4141 or visit
www.cityofpasadena.net/commissions/
community-police-oversight-commission/
133 of 137
PRESENTA La Comisión de Supervisión Comunitaria de la Policía
ENCUENTRO CON LA AUDITORA INDEPENDIENTE
DE LA POLICÍA TERESA MAGULA
Le invitamos a compartir con
nosotros sus experiencias,
reflexiones y preocupaciones sobre
la responsabilidad policial y el
futuro de la policía en Pasadena.
Martes, 6 De MAYO DE 2025
5:30 - 7:30 P .M.
Villa Parke Community CenTer
363 E. Villa St.
Para más información o para
solicitar acomodación relacionada
con discapacidad:
Llame al (626) 744-4141 o visite
www.cityofpasadena.net/commissions/
community-police-oversight-commission/
134 of 137
1 City of Pasadena Community Police Oversight Commission Work Plan: Fiscal Year 2025-26
Mission
According to Chapter 2.60 of the Pasadena Municipal Code, the purpose of the Community Police Oversight Commission (CPOC) is to enhance, develop, and strengthen community-police relations and review and make recommendations regarding the ongoing operations of the police department to the chief of police, city manager, and/or city council.
CPOC Values
Consistent with its mission, the CPOC values respect, privacy, and equity for all members of the community. The personnel of the Pasadena Police Department are also members of the community with an important responsibility for the preservation of public safety. The work of the CPOC, in partnership with the Independent Police Auditor (IPA), is to understand and bridge the needs and concerns of the community at large for peace and harmony with the needs and concerns of the Pasadena Police Department that are necessary for their public safety role. History should inform the values and actions of the commission, but it should not be a barrier to improvement. Demanding sincere improvement is, at its heart, a supportive act. The CPOC, as a representative and advisory body, endeavors to bring these values and ideals into all of its work.
FY 2025-2026 Key Objectives
The following are the key objectives for the CPOC in FY 2025-26, with more detailed information provided for each objective on the following pages of this work plan.
1. Receive information from the Police Department regarding proposed technology and equipment in the 25-26 fiscal year; review and provide recommendations on related policies; and evaluate the effectiveness of the review and recommendation process to establish a model workflow for future policy reviews.
2. Review and revise the education and onboarding process for new commissioners and the ongoing training for current commissioners to ensure readiness to advance CPOC’s mission.
3. Create and maintain a public master tracking tool to view the status of CPOC recommendations and actively monitor and update progress toward completion.
4. Evaluate the Police Department’s policies and training related to responding to individuals experiencing a mental health crisis and/or domestic violence and make recommendations to enhance the use of best practices, resources, and referrals that support affected individuals and reduce future law enforcement interactions.
135 of 137
2 Objective 1 – Receive information from the Police Department regarding proposed technology and equipment in the 25-26 fiscal year; review and provide recommendations on related policies; and evaluate the effectiveness of the review and recommendation process to establish a model workflow for future policy reviews.
Ad Hoc Committee Members: (Lead)
Action Items
• Building upon the work of the CPOC in past years, develop a standardized workflow for reviewing policies related to new technologies and equipment that can be incorporated into the Commission’s rules and regulations. • Provide a transparent process and platform for the community to understand and provide feedback on policies related to new technology and equipment.
Objective 2 – Review and revise the education and onboarding process for new commissioners and the ongoing training for current commissioners to ensure readiness to advance CPOC’s mission.
Ad Hoc Committee Members: (Lead)
Action Items
• Assess past and current commissioner training and identify relevant training topics and resources.
• Identify key aspects of the Commission’s history and accomplishments to incorporate into onboarding, ensuring new commissioners understand the Commission’s work, impact, and challenges.
• Develop a comprehensive training curriculum and onboarding process for new commissioners and an ongoing education program to keep all commissioners informed of best practices and emerging developments in the field of police oversight.
Objective 3 – Create and maintain a public master tracking tool to view the status of CPOC recommendations and actively monitor and update progress toward completion.
Ad Hoc Committee Members: (Lead)
136 of 137
3 Action Items
• Collaborate with the Independent Police Auditor (IPA) to enhance the functionality and usability of the existing public Recommendations Tracker, ensuring it includes both IPA and CPOC recommendations. • Create a process to actively monitor and verify progress on the implementation of recommendations.
Objective 4 – Evaluate the Police Department’s policies and training related to responding to individuals experiencing a mental health crisis and/or domestic violence and make recommendations to enhance the use of best practices, resources, and referrals that support affected individuals and reduce future law enforcement interactions.
Ad Hoc Committee Members: (Lead)
Action Items
• In collaboration with the IPA and Police Department, conduct an in-depth review of policies and practices related to responses involving individuals experiencing a mental health crisis and/or domestic violence.
• Research best practices from other jurisdictions and identify available supports and resources within the City and County.
• Develop and recommend policy changes, as appropriate, to strengthen response practices and ensure affected individuals receive an appropriate response. 137 of 137
OLD PASADENA PARKING METER ZONE ADVISORY COMMISSION*
RECREATION AND PARKS COMMISSION*
PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
September 1, 2025
TO: City Council
FROM: Recreation and Parks Commission
SUBJECT: Annual Report - July 2024 through June 2025 and Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2025-2026
Recommendation:
This report is submitted for information purposes only.
Attached are the following:
• Report of Accomplishments for July 2, 2024, through June 3, 2025 • Report of Commission Attendance for July 2, 2024, through June 3, 2025
• Work Plan for July 1, 2025, through June 2, 2026
The attached documents were reviewed and approved by the Recreation and Parks Commission at our Annual meeting on June 3, 2025.
Respectfully submitted,
Terri Ashley- MacQuarrie, Chair
Recreation and Parks Commission
2 City of Pasadena Recreation and Parks Commission Work Plan Accomplishments: 07/2/24 – 06/03/2025
Mission:
The purpose of the Commission is to advise the City Council on all matters concerning recreation, recreational use and programs, and all related features of “dedicated parkland,” as defined and designated in chapter 3.23 of the Pasadena Municipal Code and of ‘parks,’ as defined and designated in section 3.24.020 (f) of the Pasadena Municipal Code.
Overall Objective:
Develop recommendations for recreation programs, park and open space resources and infrastructure, direct resource utilization, and identify funding sources to support these resources.
FY 2024-2025 Ad Hoc Committees:
Ad Hoc Committee re: Objective #1 – Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Committee Ad Hoc Committee re: Objective #2 – Maintenance and Safety Committee Ad Hoc Committee re: Objective #3 – Recreation Programs Committee
RPC Report of Accomplishments FY 2024-2025. Approved August 12, 2025.
3 Ad Hoc Committee re: Objective #1–Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Committee
Commissioners: Ashley- MacQuarrie (Lead), Mitchell, Riddle, and Tan City Staff: Kenny James and Mel Alonzo
Action Items:
• Completed - A 101 Orientation for the Committee Members during the first meeting of the Recreation
and Parks Commission of the fiscal year, and for new members as appropriate. • Completed - Review the proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for FY 26-30.
• Completed - Identify and support funding opportunities for unfunded projects. • Completed - Evaluate the implementation of the Parks Master Plans for Parkland and promote CIP projects.
Work Plan Updates:
July 2024:
• Recreation and Parks Commission meeting canceled.
August 2024:
• No update
September 2024:
• Recreation and Parks Commission meeting canceled.
October 2024:
• A CIP Ad Hoc Committee meeting has been scheduled for October 11.
November 2024:
• Recreation and Parks Commission meeting canceled.
December 2024:
• Recreation and Parks Commission tabled Work Plan updates and discussion.
January 2025:
• Recreation and Parks Commission meeting canceled.
February 2025:
• The CIP Committee will be meeting on February 20 at 4 p.m.
RPC Report of Accomplishments FY 2024-2025. Approved August 12, 2025.
4 March 2025:
• The CIP Ad Hoc Committee met with Staff on February 20 to discuss with Staff and prepare for the presentation of the FY 2026-2030 Capital Improvement Program.
• The Recreation and Parks Commission received a presentation from Staff with the recommended FY 2026-2030 Capital Improvement Program. The Commission unanimously approved the Staff's Recommendation.
Status: Completed March 4, 2025.
RPC Report of Accomplishments FY 2024-2025. Approved August 12, 2025.
5 Ad Hoc Committee re: Objective #2 – Maintenance and Safety Committee
Commissioners: Ashley-MacQuarrie (Lead), Bender, Mastromatteo, and Riddle City Staff: Mel Alonzo, Talib Khalfani.
Action Items:
• Completed - A 101 Orientation for the Committee Members during the first meeting of the Recreation and Parks Commission of the fiscal year, and for new members as appropriate.
• Completed - Discuss issues pertaining to the safety and maintenance of City parks and park preservation.
• Completed - Review the Park checklist forms received from Commissioners. • Completed - Collaborate with other organizations and governmental bodies on park and open space issues.
• Ongoing - Monitor accessibility and disability issues in the parks and, as needed, work with the Accessibility and Disability Commission.
Work Plan Updates:
July 2024:
• Recreation and Parks Commission
meeting canceled for August 2024
• The Maintenance and Safety Committee Meeting was held on August 5 ➢ Commissioner Bender proposed and discussed the need for additional staffing resources in the Parks Maintenance Division with staff. The need is due to the uptick in usage at Washington Park and Robinson Park, in addition to the expansion of additional parks over recent years and additional areas of responsibility. Costs were discussed.
➢ One or two maintenance employees could make a difference. • In light of the core tasks not happening, Commissioner Bender requested that the Department consider the addition of park maintenance staff.
September 2024:
• Recreation and Parks Commission meeting canceled.
October 2024:
• The meeting was held on September 30
➢ Discussed the installation of two cameras in the south parking lot of Robinson Park.
➢ Discussed the city-wide park shade structure plans
➢ Discussed the status of the purchase of electric riding mowers.
RPC Report of Accomplishments FY 2024-2025. Approved August 12, 2025. 6 November 2024:
• Recreation and Parks Commission meeting canceled.
December 2024:
• Recreation and Parks Commission tabled Work Plan updates and discussion.
January 2025:
• Recreation and Parks Commission meeting canceled.
February 2025:
• The Committee last met in January, with no current updates.
March 2025:
• A Maintenance and Safety meeting was held on March 3. ➢ The status of the trees in the parks was discussed.
➢ The Lower Arroyo was discussed.
April 2025:
• Recreation and Parks Commission meeting canceled.
May 2025:
• A Maintenance and Safety meeting was held on May 5.
➢ Discussed the cleanup from the Wildfires at Hamilton Park and other affected parks.
June 2025:
• A Maintenance and Safety meeting was held on June 2.
➢ A discussion took place in preparation for the formation of the FY 2025- 2026 Work Plan, including the proposed options and the redevelopment of the maintenance and safety category objective.
Status: Completed
RPC Report of Accomplishments FY 2024-2025. Approved August 12, 2025 7 Ad Hoc Committee re: Objective #3–Recreation Programs Committee
Commissioners: Tan (Lead), Ashley-MacQuarrie, Bender, and Mastromatteo City Staff: Kenny James and Leonardo Chavez
Action Items:
• Completed - A 101 Orientation for the Committee Members during the first meeting of the Recreation and Parks Commission of the fiscal year, and for new members as appropriate.
• Completed - Meet with staff regularly to review recreation programs and make recommendations.
• Ongoing - Monitor accessibility and disability issues in recreation programs as needed and work with the Accessibility and Disability Commission.
Work Plan Updates:
July 2024:
• Recreation and Parks Commission Meeting canceled.
August 2024:
• The July Recreation Programs Committee meeting was
canceled; the next meeting will be held on August 27.
September 2024:
• Recreation and Parks Commission meeting canceled.
October 2024:
• The last meeting was held on August 27.
➢ Staff gave an overview of the summer programs, summer camps, the aquatics program, the fall adventure programs, the new sports programs, the grand opening of the Pickleball courts at Vina Vieja, the renaming of the Rose Bowl aquatic center, the netting installed at Jackie Robinson Stadium, and the installation of a new fence at Oak Grove Park.
November 2024:
• Recreation and Parks Commission meeting canceled.
December 2024:
• Recreation and Parks Commission tabled Work Plan updates and discussion.
RPC Report of Accomplishments FY 2024-2025. Approved August 12, 2025 8 January 2025:
• Recreation and Parks Commission meeting canceled.
February 2025:
• The Committee has not met. A meeting will be held on February 26.
March 2025:
• A Recreation Programs meeting was held on February 26. ➢ Youth Programs were discussed.
➢ The Summer Catalog was discussed.
➢ Dates of registration for the summer program were discussed. ➢ Discussed recreation summer staffing.
➢ A discussion took place on children's trauma issues due to the Wildfires and ways to help.
➢ Questions were raised regarding the upcoming 2028 Olympics efforts.
April 2025:
• Recreation and Parks Commission meeting canceled.
May 2025:
• No updates
June 2025:
• A Recreation Programs meeting was held on May 28
➢ An update was provided on Pasadena Unified School District Pool closures and how staff compensated for the expansion of city aquatic programs and operations.
➢ An update was provided on summer camp registration and summer camp program operations.
Status: Completed
RPC Report of Accomplishments FY 2024-2025. Approved August 12, 2025 9 Recreation and Parks Commission
CIP/Revenue (4)
Terri Ashley-MacQuarrie (Lead)
Betsy Mitchell
Edgar Riddle
Howard Tan
Maintenance and Safety (4)
Terri Ashley-MacQuarrie (Lead)
Lon Bender
Mark Mastromatteo
Edgar Riddle
Recreation Programs (4)
Howard Tan (Lead),
Terri Ashley-
MacQuarrie, Lon
Bender
Mark Mastromatteo
Urban Forestry Advisory Committee (2)
Tim Martinez (Lead),
Lon Bender
Recreation and Parks Foundation (3)
Treasure Sheppard (Lead),
Terri Ashley-MacQuarrie,
Mark Mastromatteo
Hahamongna Watershed Park Advisory Committee
(HWPAC)(5)
Tim Martinez (Lead)
Treasure Sheppard
Howard Tan
Vacant
Vacant
RPC Report of Accomplishments FY 2024-2025. Approved August 12, 2025 Ad Hoc Committee Assignments
Other
10 Recreation and Parks Commission Park Assignments
PARK/DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
ALLENDALE-7 Lon Bender
AREA H -1 Howard Tan
BRENNER - 3 Betsy Mitchell
BROOKSIDE -1 Howard Tan
CENTRAL- 6 Edgar Riddle
DEFENDERS-6 Tim Martinez
DESIDERIO-1 Mark Mastromatteo
EATON-BLANCHE-4 Terri Ashley-MacQuarrie
GRANT-7 Lon Bender
GWINN-4 Edgar Riddle
HAHAMONGNA-1 Howard Tan
HAMILTON-4 Edgar Riddle
JEFFERSON-2 Betsy Mitchell
LA PINTORESCA-1 Tim Martinez
LA CASITA/LOWER ARROYO- 6 Terri Ashely-MacQuarrie
MCDONALD-5 Betsy Mitchell
MEMORIAL-3 Lon Bender
ROBINSON-3 Treasure Sheppard
PLAYHOUSE VILLAGE PARK-3 Treasure Sheppard
SAN RAFAEL-6 Mark Mastromatteo
SINGER-6 Mark Mastromatteo
SUNNYSLOPE-4 Edgar Riddle
VICTORY-4 Lon Bender
VILLA-5 Terri Ashley-MacQuarrie
VINA VIEJA-4 Mark Mastromatteo
WASHINGTON-5 Tim Martinez
RPC Report of Accomplishments FY 2024-2025. Approved August 12, 2025 11 RPC Meeting Attendance Record FY 2024-2025. Approved June 3, 2025.
12 City of Pasadena Recreation and Parks Commission
Work Plan: 07/1/25 – 06/02/2026
Mission:
The purpose of the Commission is to advise the City Council on all matters concerning recreation, recreational use and programs, and all related features of “dedicated parkland,” as defined and designated in chapter 3.23 of the Pasadena Municipal Code and of ‘parks,’ as defined and designated in section 3.24.020 (f) of the Pasadena Municipal Code.
Overall Objective:
Develop recommendations for recreation programs, park and open space resources and infrastructure, direct resource utilization, and identify funding sources to support these resources.
FY 2025-2026 Ad Hoc Committees:
Ad Hoc Committee re: Objective #1 – Park Enhancements and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Committee
Ad Hoc Committee re: Objective #2 – Maintenance and Safety Committee
Ad Hoc Committee re: Objective #3 – Recreation Programs Committee
Ad Hoc Committee re: Objective #4 – LA28 Olympic Committee
RPC Work Plan 2025-2026. Approved June 3, 2025
13 Ad Hoc Committee re: Objective #1– Park Enhancements and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Committee
Commissioners: Ashley- MacQuarrie (Lead), Mitchell, Riddle, and Tan City Staff: Kenny James and Mel Alonzo
Action Items:
• Review goals and objectives as they pertain to park
enhancements and the Capital Improvement Program.
• Review the proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for FY 27-31. • Identify one to two unfunded projects.
• Identify one to two funded projects.
• Develop a work plan to form a park enhancement.
Work Plan Updates:
July 2025:
• Recreation and Parks Commission meeting canceled.
Status:
RPC Work Plan 2025-2026. Approved June 3, 2025
14 Ad Hoc Committee re: Objective #2 – Maintenance and Safety Committee
Commissioners: Ashley-MacQuarrie (Lead), Mastromatteo, Riddle and Tan City Staff: Mel Alonzo, Talib Khalfani.
Action Items:
• Review goals and objectives for the Maintenance and Safety Committee. • Meet monthly to discuss issues pertaining to the maintenance of City parks and park preservation.
• Park Maintenance Committee meet bi-monthly to discuss safety issues and concerns.
• Identify issues in parks and report to staff.
Work Plan Updates:
July 2025:
• Recreation and Parks Commission meeting canceled.
Status:
RPC Work Plan 2025-2026. Approved June 3, 2025
15 Ad Hoc Committee re: Objective #3–Recreation Programs Committee
Commissioners: Sheppard (Lead), Ashley-MacQuarrie, Mastromatteo and Tan City Staff: Kenny James and Leonardo Chavez
Action Items:
• Review goals and objectives for the Recreation Programs Committee • Enhancements and ways to improve current recreation programs and venues. • Evaluate new requests for programs and venues and make recommendations to staff.
• Committee members attend special events, engage with the community, and gain valuable feedback.
Work Plan Updates:
July 2025:
• Recreation and Parks Commission Meeting canceled.
Status:
RPC Work Plan 2025-2026. Approved June 3, 2025
16 Ad Hoc Committee re: Objective #4 –LA28 Olympic Committee
Commissioners: Mitchell (Lead), Ashley-MacQuarrie, Mastromatteo and Sheppard Staff: Kenny James and Mel Alonzo
Action Items:
• Collaborate with the City Manager’s office to develop goals, objectives and a timeline.
• Identify ways to engage the community preceding and during the 2028 Summer Olympics.
Work Plan Updates:
July 2025:
• Recreation and Parks Commission Meeting canceled.
Status:
RPC Work Plan 2025-2026. Approved June 3, 2025
17 Recreation and Parks Commission
CIP/Revenue (4)
Terri Ashley-MacQuarrie (Lead)
Betsy Mitchell
Edgar Riddle
Howard Tan
Maintenance and Safety (4)
Terri Ashley-MacQuarrie (Lead)
Mark Mastromatteo Edgar Riddle
Howard Tan
Recreation Programs (4)
Treasure Sheppard (Lead)
Terri Ashley-MacQuarrie
Mark Mastromatteo
Howard Tan
Urban Forestry Advisory Committee (2)
Tim Martinez (Lead)
Vacant
Recreation and Parks Foundation (3)
Treasure Sheppard
(Lead), Terri Ashley-
MacQuarrie, Mark
Mastromatteo
Hahamongna Watershed Park Advisory Committee
(HWPAC)(5)
Tim Martinez (Lead)
Treasure Sheppard
Howard Tan
Vacant
RPC Work Plan 2025-20265. Approved June 3, 2025
Ad Hoc Committee Assignments
Other
18 Recreation and Parks Commission Park Assignments
PARK/DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
ALLENDALE-7 Lon Bender
AREA H -1 Howard Tan
BRENNER - 3 Betsy Mitchell
BROOKSIDE -1 Howard Tan
CENTRAL- 6 Edgar Riddle
DEFENDERS-6 Tim Martinez
DESIDERIO-1 Mark Mastromatteo
EATON-BLANCHE-4 Terri Ashley-MacQuarrie
GRANT-7 Lon Bender
GWINN-4 Edgar Riddle
HAHAMONGNA-1 Howard Tan
HAMILTON-4 Edgar Riddle
JEFFERSON-2 Betsy Mitchell
LA PINTORESCA-1 Tim Martinez
LA CASITA/LOWER ARROYO- 6 Terri Ashely-MacQuarrie
MCDONALD-5 Betsy Mitchell
MEMORIAL-3 Lon Bender
ROBINSON-3 Treasure Sheppard
PLAYHOUSE VILLAGE PARK-3 Treasure Sheppard
SAN RAFAEL-6 Mark Mastromatteo
SINGER-6 Mark Mastromatteo
SUNNYSLOPE-4 Edgar Riddle
VICTORY-4 Lon Bender
VILLA-5 Terri Ashley-MacQuarrie
VINA VIEJA-4 Mark Mastromatteo
WASHINGTON-5 Tim Martinez
RPC Work Plan 2025-2026. Approved June 3, 2025
SOUTH LAKE PARKING PLACE COMMISSION*
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMISSION*
1 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
June 26, 2025
TO: City Council
FROM: Transportation Advisory Commission
SUBJECT: Annual Report – July 2024 through June 2025, and Work Plan for July 2025 through June 2026
Recommendation:
The Annual report is submitted for informational purposes only.
Attached is the following:
• Mission Statement
• Annual report of accomplishments for July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025 • Work Plan for July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026
• Roster of subcommittees for 2024-2025
• Report of Commission attendance for July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025 TAC reviewed and offered input on a number of important transportation items this past year, taking into consideration community input. The Commission reviewed its accomplishments over the past year to determine if they were in compliance with the Mission Statement. The emphasis continues to be engagement with the community and facilitating how it can best serve and represent the residents of Pasadena in matters before the Department of Transportation.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________ _______________________
Jeffrey “Joe” Fenstermaker David Chiang
Chair Vice Chair
221 East Walnut Street⬥ Suite 210 ⬥ Pasadena, CA 91101 www.cityofpasadena.net/trans
2 CITY OF PASADENA
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMISSION
ANNUAL REPORT: 7/1/2024 – 6/30/2025
WORK PLAN: 7/1/2025 – 6/30/26
MISSION STATEMENT
As set forth in Section 2.135.110 of the Municipal Code, the primary purpose of the Transportation Advisory Commission is to advise the City Council concerning policies affecting the City’s transportation system. The Commission studies and holds public hearings assessing the economic, environmental, and social adequacy of the City’s transportation system and recommends short and long-range measures for its improvement.
The Commission also advises the City Council on matters aimed at implementing the objectives and policies contained in the 2015 General Plan Mobility Element, along with any future updates to the City’s Mobility Element.
Consistent with Section 2.135.110 and the Commission’s Rules and Regulations, the Commission studies and makes policy recommendations to the City Council on issues including, but not limited to, the following:
a. All measures affecting the traffic circulation and transportation in the City of Pasadena.
b. Annual and long-range allocation of Proposition A and C funds and Measure R Metro Sales Tax Funds.
c. Annual capital programs and five-year Capital Improvement Program of the City affecting streets and transportation.
d. Federal, state, and regional funding actions affecting the transportation network serving Pasadena, including existing and proposed freeways. e. Inclusion of Pasadena in Southern California’s Light Rail Transit Network. f. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs and measures designed to manage or reduce traffic congestion, including ridesharing, vanpooling, alternative work-hours strategies, application of new technologies, and encouragement of existing and alternative modes of transit. g. Provision for a public transit system, including streetcar/trolley and shuttle bus systems.
h. Protection of residential neighborhoods from intrusion of through traffic or new trips generated by new development projects.
i. Provision for service to those with limited access to transportation, including people with disabilities, seniors, and youths, among others. 3 j. Promotion of an updated Bicycle Transportation Action Plan, with an eye to creating a more cohesive route structure through the city. Development of the new Active Transportation Plan, to create a unified vision for pedestrian, bicycle and “rolling” plans.
k. Promotion of energy conservation aspects of transportation. l. If and to the extent requested by the City Council, leadership of and participation in local and regional studies and committees or task forces dealing with transportation issues.
m. Utilization of the 710 Stub ad hoc subcommittee to meet and provide input on SR710 corridor transportation related efforts.
n. If and to the extent requested by the City Council, assistance to other City Commissions, Committees and Task Forces regarding transportation-related issues including review of and comment on transportation related policy aspects of various elements of the City’s Strategic Plans, Specific Plans, Master Plans, development projects, and associated environmental impact reports. o. Such other matters as shall be referred from time to time to the Commission by the City Council.
Public Engagement
The Commission values and pursues effective communication between itself, DOT staff, and other city departments, as well as all City Council members, neighborhood groups and stakeholders.
Attachments
Roster of Subcommittees – The roster for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 subcommittees is attached as Exhibit A. Because commissioners changed for District 2 with the Election of Councilmember Cole there are two Exhibit A attachments.
Attendance Record – An attendance record for commissioners during Fiscal Year 2024-2025 is attached as Exhibit B.
4 ANNUAL REPORT: July 1, 2024 - June 30, 2025
The following are highlights of the Commission activities and accomplishments for the fiscal year 2024-2025:
July 2024 TAC elected commissioner Fenstermaker as chair and commissioner Chiang as Vice Chair. Discussion of TAC appointment to Design Commission postponed vote until interested
commissioners met the one year on TAC nomination criteria.
Calendar of regularly scheduled TAC meetings was approved. TAC Ad Hoc subcommittee assignments were made.
September 2024 Presentation: Walktober 2024 with commissioner questions about vendor procurement process. Presentation on Citywide Pedestrian Safety and Education update, with commissioner questions about heatmap data and how it is used to determine priorities.
October 2024 Presentation from the City Attorney’s Office regarding Commissioner Training Re: Brown Act and conflict of interest as well as general ethics best practices – Information Item. Assignment of Members to Ad Hoc Subcommittees.
November/
December 2024
Combined
Meeting
Presentation on Pasadena Transit and Dial-A-Ride Short Range Transit Plan Draft Recommendations. Discussion on improvements and reallocation of Pasadena transit resources to better serve riders through route adjustments and service hours.
January 2025 Given the Eaton Fire occurred weeks earlier at the start of January DOT staff as well as commissioners were all engaged in fire recovery related efforts so the January TAC meeting was canceled.
February 2025 Presentation on the current (FY 2025-2029) Capital Improvements Program (CIP), covering current and future CIP priorities. Information Item only preceding the March CIP action item.
March 2025 Presentation on FY 2026-2030 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), focused on Streets and Streetscapes projects and Transportation CIP Projects. Approved the CIP. Presentation by DOT staff and an outside consultant regarding changes to the Transportation Impact Fee structure and formula. Commissioners determined that a subsequent special meeting was necessary to fully understand the fee formula.
5 April 2025 Special Meeting: to further understand and clarify the effects of the updated Transportation Impact Fee formula. The TIF fee was approved and recommended to the city council.
Regular Meeting: Presentation on upcoming Bike Month programs and activities. Presentation on Near Term 710 Projects including upgrades to St. John Avenue and Pasadena Avenue. Discussion of future activation of the 710 Ad Hoc Committee.
May 2025 Presentation on bi-annual Pedestrian Safety Update covering injuries and fatalities. Commissioners discussion about data accuracy and pedestrian safety prioritization relative to CIP objectives. Action Item Presentation on Modifications to Pasadena Municipal Code Chapter 10.60 - to update language from the 1940s and to bring the code into compliance with State code also to account for new modes like e-Bikes in three classes, Class One pedal assist limited to 18mph, Class Two Throttle controlled, Class Three pedal assist limited to 28mph. The item was not fully adopted pending further information about bike speed limits when riding on the sidewalk. Specifically, if 15mph is too fast for riding on a sidewalk.
June 2025 Reviewed the TAC 2024-2025 Work Plan. Further discussion of Modifications to Pasadena Municipal Code Chapter 10.60
specifically pertaining to bicycle speed limits when riding on sidewalks. Reviewed Speed Hump Policy modifications
recommended by City Staff.
6 WORK PLAN: July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2026
As required by Section 2.135.090 of the Municipal Code, the Commission has developed the following Work Plan representing a partial list of the most important issues to be reviewed or studied by the Commission for fiscal year 2025-2026. We will periodically review the plan if needed based on arising circumstances.
Commission Administration
Commissioner Orientation Program — The Commission will continue to utilize its “Orientation Program” for new Commissioners to accelerate the process of getting new Commissioners up to date on TAC issues and procedures.
Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Capital Improvement Projects — The Commission will continue to review and make recommendations to the City Council regarding annual capital improvement program and the five-year capital improvement program. NOTE: New project ideas are generally due in the third quarter of each year.
Communications and Neighborhood Engagement
The Commission values effective communication between DOT staff, the City Council, and neighborhood groups and stakeholders. Complementing the objectives outlined in the Neighborhood Involvement objectives, the Commission will continue to review and provide advisory support of DOT staff and consultant materials and presentations.
Neighborhood Involvement — Each Commissioner is encouraged to work with their Council Member’s office to participate in meetings in their district or have a transportation focus added to an already existing meeting, in efforts to gather public input. Additionally, Commissioners are encouraged to find other ways to reach out to the public and encourage community involvement.
Complete Streets
Active Transportation Plan — The Commission will review and offer input on development of this new unified vision for all the plans that fall under this heading.
Bicycle Transportation Plan — The Commission will monitor the progress on the implementation of Pasadena’s Bicycle Transportation Plan. The Commission will also continue to advise on the development and implementation of bicycle- related strategies which would promote the safety of bicyclists riding on city streets, creating a more cohesive route structure through the city, and providing secure places to park bicycles and other alternative modes of transport in shopping/dining hubs around the City.
Complete Streets Improvement Measures — The Commission will continue its efforts to encourage non-vehicular modes of travel in Pasadena. The 7 Commission will also continue to monitor and support efforts to increase development of projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions by generating vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) that are less than City’s adopted VMT goals.
Pedestrian Plan — The Commission will monitor the progress on preparation of the various Specific Plans and will use that process as well as the City’s Complete Streets Program to advocate for the development and implementation of pedestrian friendly strategies which would encourage walking and would promote the safety of pedestrians walking along city streets or crossing at intersections.
Design and Project Review
If and to the extent requested by the City Council: The Commission will continue to review and comment on transportation related policy aspects of various elements of the City’s Strategic Plans, Specific Plans, Master Plans, development projects, and associated Environmental Impact Reports (EIR). A representative from the Commission serves as a voting member of the Design Commission to further ensure the inclusion of a transportation perspective in the review of projects.
General Plan/Specific Plans Update
The Commission will continue to participate in the City’s Specific Plan update process.
Metro A (Blue) Line
The Commission will continue to monitor efforts by DOT and Metro to reduce vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian delays at the three at-grade Metro A Line crossings of Glenarm Street, California Boulevard and Del Mar Boulevard. The Commission will also monitor bicycle and pedestrian safety and access to the A Line stations located throughout the City.
710 Stub
The Commission will continue to provide input on SR-710 corridor transportation related efforts. This includes reviewing progress on the Measure R Mobility Improvement Projects (MIP) List that were granted funding by Metro (in lieu of the Metro A Line Grade Separation of California Boulevard), and reviewing future project proposals for the remaining relevant funds.
Traffic and Safety
The Commission will track traffic safety trends and progress on efforts to improve traffic flow and road safety and continue to advise on these matters.
Transit Issues
The Commission will continue to monitor and advise on the progress of various improvements to transit routes planning, equipment upgrades, bus stop improvements, transit arrival systems, etc., in support of the Department of 8 Transportation’s mission to maintain a livable community in which cars are not necessary to travel within the city.
9 10
11 Exhibit B
Transportation Advisory Commission
Attendance Report
Please note, this attendance report was updated on July 17th to include attendance from the July 26th meeting