SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL Item 04 2024-00650 Sacramento Community Police Review Commission 2023 Annual Report — Personnel and Public Employees Committee, April 30, 2024

City of Sacramento Page 1

PERSONNEL AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES

COMMITTEE
Lisa Kaplan, Chair, District 1
Karina Talamantes, District 3
Katie Valenzuela, District 4
Caity Maple, Vice Chair, District 5

COMMITTEE STAFF
Mindy Cuppy,
City Clerk
Jacob Bredberg,
Administrative Analyst
Brett Witter,
Assistant City Attorney

Personnel and Public Employees
Committee
City Hall Complex
915 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814
Published by the Office of the City Clerk
(916) 808-7200

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

Description of Attached: Attached is supplemental material received after publishing the agenda, replacement of Attachment 2. The attached staff report replaces the original staff report in its entirety.

For the Meeting of: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 at 11:00 a.m.

Agenda Item: Discussion Item 4

4. Sacramento Community Police Review Commission 2023 Annual Report File ID: 2024-00650

Location: Citywide

Recommendation: 1) Review the Sacramento Community Police Review Commission’s (the “Commission”) 2023 Annual Report (the “Report”) (Attachment 2) pursuant to Council Rules of Procedure chapter 17 (C)(4); and 2) pass a Motion to a) provide direction to staff to: i) forward the Report to the City Council for direction and action; or ii) update the Report to incorporate changes by the Personnel and Public Employee Committee (“P&PE”) and forward to the City Council for review and action; or b) provide direction to the Commission to reevaluate the Report based on P&PE’s comments and concerns and come back to the Committee.

Contact: Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk, (916) 808-5442, [email protected], Office of the City Clerk

City of Sacramento
Personnel and Public Employees Committee Report
915 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org
File ID: 2024-00650 4/30/2024 Discussion Item 4.

Sacramento Community Police Review Commission 2023 Annual Report File ID: 2024-00650
Location: Citywide
Recommendation: 1) Review the Sacramento Community Police Review Commission’s (the “Commission”) 2023 Annual Report (the “Report”) (Attachment 2) pursuant to Council Rules of Procedure chapter 17 (C)(4); and 2) pass a Motion to a) provide direction to staff to: i) forward the Report to the City Council for direction and action; or ii) update the Report to incorporate changes by the Personnel and Public Employee Committee (“P&PE”) and forward to the City Council for review and action; or b) provide direction to the Commission to reevaluate the Report based on P&PE’s comments and concerns and come back to the Committee.

Contact: Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk, (916) 808-5442, [email protected], Office of the City Clerk.

Presenter: Keyan Bliss, Chair, and Manuel Buenrostro, Vice Chair, Sacramento Community Police Review Commission
Attachments:
1-Description/Analysis
2-2023 Annual Report 2023 SCPRC Annual Report-REDLINE
Description/Analysis
Issue Detail: Advisory bodies of the City are required to provide an annual report for review to the Personnel and Public Employees Committee (“P&PE”) as outlined in City Council Rules of Procedure chapter 17. Advisory bodies may also make recommendations outside the annual review process.

P&PE may consider and act on recommendations, outside of the annual review process, in the same way it does annual reports. (Council Rules of Procedure chapter 17(C)(4)). The Sacramento Community Police Review Commission (the "Commission") approved its 2024 Annual Work Plan at its February 12, 2024 meeting and forwarded the Work Plan to the P&PE for review and consideration of forwarding to Council for action. At its March 11, 2024 meeting, the Commission reviewed and approved the Annual Report.

Before forwarding the 2023 Annual Report to the City Council, P&PE may request supplemental information from staff or the Commission.

The attached 2023 Annual Report is being forwarded to the P&PE Committee for consideration.

Policy Considerations: Chapter 17 of the Council Rules of Procedure outlines the Advisory Body

Page 1 of 2 ends

File ID: 2024-00650 4/30/2024 Discussion Item 4.
reporting process.

Economic Impacts: Not Applicable.

Environmental Considerations:

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): This action is not a project that is subject to CEQA because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines §15378(b)(5)).

Sustainability: Not Applicable.

Commission/Committee Action: On February 12, 2024 the Sacramento Community Police Review Commission passed a motion approving and forwarding its 2024 Annual Work Plan to P&PE for consideration. At its March 11, 2024 meeting, the Commission reviewed and approved the Annual Report and forwarded it to P&PE for consideration.

Rationale for Recommendation: So that advisory bodies may effectively incorporate their important role, voice, and work to provide thoughtful community recommendations to the City Council on a consistent basis P&PE facilitates the process for advisory bodies to communicate their accomplishments, projects, priorities, and recommendations to the City Council. The Commission desires to timely perform its functions and mission annually. As such, the Commission forwarded the 2023 Annual Report for review and consideration of forwarding to the Council.

Financial Considerations: Not Applicable.

Local Business Enterprise (LBE): Not Applicable.Page 2 of 2 SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 1

Sacramento Community Police Review Commission
2023 Annual Report

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 2

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSIONERS
Keyan Bliss (Chair)
Manuel Buenrostro (Vice Chair)
Renee Carter
Graciela Castillo-Krings
Kim Carter Martinez
Rick Griggs
John L. Johnson
Z. Wayne Johnson
Jody S. Johnson
Xochimilco Espinoza Salazar
Jason Sample

COMMISSION STAFF
Audreyell Anderson-White, Senior Deputy Attorney
Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk
Mario Lara, Assistant City Manager

City of Sacramento – Office of the City Clerk
915 I Street – Sacramento, CA 95814
[email protected]

(916) 808-7200

www.commissions.cityofsacramento.org

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 3

Sacramento Community Police Review Commission
The Sacramento Community Police Review Commission (SCPRC) was established to 1) provide community participation in reviewing and recommending police department policies, practices, and procedures; and 2) monitoring the implementation, evaluation, and sustainability of city policing initiatives and programs. (Sacramento City Code section 2.110.020 ).

Powers and Duties of the SCPRC

Subject to City Code Section 2.110.030 the Commission’s powers and duties are as follows:

A. The commission shall advise and make recommendations to the city council regarding police policy, procedures, and best practices, including those related to community relations, hiring, and training best practices .

B. The commission shall review quarterly reports prepared by the office of public safety accountability consistent with California Penal Code
section 832.7(c), relating to the
number, kind, and status of all citizen complaints filed against police department personnel, to determine whether there are patterns of misconduct that necessitate revisions to any police policy, practice, or procedure.

C. At least annually, to report and make recommendations to the mayor and the city council regarding the activities of the commission and the Sacramento Police Department’s efforts to strengthen bias -free policing and community-police relations. (Ord. 2016-0055 § 2)

To fulfill its responsibilities , the Commission monitors and evaluates the City’s policing initiatives and programs. The Commission meets publicly about 10 times a year with meetings usually ranging from one to three hours.

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 4

Summary of Activities in 2023
Military Equipment Use
On September 13, 2022, the Sacramento City Council directed the Sacramento Police Department (SPD) to collaborate with the SCPRC to establish a community engagement process that provides the public an opportunity to review and comment on SPD’s military equipment use policies, practices, and procedures.

In early 2023, a subgroup of Commissioners met regularly with Assistant City Manager Mario Lara and Lieutenant Jeffrey Shiraishi to collaborate on creating a community engagement process that sought to begin a dialogue that could lead to a better understanding of the mutual needs of community and police, leading to equitable balance.

Through this process, the Commission in collaboration with SPD, organized three community forums, which were hosted in community centers:

● Pannell Meadowview Community Center
Thursday, July 6th

● Hagginwood Community Center
Thursday, July 27th

● Hart Senior Center
Saturday, July 29

Through this community engagement process, the SCPRC produced a detailed report based on these discussions that included the following nine recommendations to improve SPD’s MEU policy:

1. Require SPD to track and report the total number of military equipment deployments within the City's jurisdiction separately from the total number of "reportable uses" of force or discharges of military weapons in its annual MEU report.

2. Add a standalone section(s) to the General Order that clearly states when and where military equipment or munitions are prohibited for deployment, use or discharge.

3. Remove all language under each section authorizing military equipment deployment or usage in situations that includes "crowd control" or "circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained."

4. Require SPD to produce its annual report using Comparative Reporting and Demographic Reporting to provide information that includes, at a minimum, where it uses its military equipment and munitions; who it is used against; and the context the equipment is used.

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 5

5. Establish a formal and standardized process for soliciting community input and incorporating feedback into annual updates of SPD's military equipment use policy that includes clear timelines for opening SPD’s community survey and hosting no less than 3 community input forums as adopted from the SCPRC’s Community Outreach Plan.

6. Designate independent oversight authority to the Office of Public Safety and Accountability (OPSA), the Inspector General (IG), and the SCPRC for ensuring SPD’s compliance with this policy and AB 481. OPSA and IG should be responsible for investigating any individual violations of the MEU policy. SCPRC should have authority to review and provide recommendations for remedying nonconforming uses to SPD, the Mayor and City Council before the adoption of any changes to the MEU policy.

7. Consolidate all military munitions, grenades, or canisters that deploys’ any type of chemical agent listed under AB 48 into the "Chemical Agents and Smoke Canisters" category. Under the consolidated category, add language or links to manufacturers' websites that contains information including, but is not limited to, the clear definitions for each type of chemical agent, and any health or environmental hazards from the deployment of these types, and procedures for cleaning up after deployments of chemical agents.

8. City Council should coordinate directly with SCPRC and SPD to organize community input forum(s) within their respective districts. Each city council member should coordinate with SCPRC to either host a community input forum within their respective council district, or at minimum, attend at least one (1) community input forum in a listening capacity within the bounds of the Ralph M. Brown Act.

9. City Council should approve annual funding for SCPRC to continue to engage community directly and more often throughout the year.

A comprehensive list of these recommendations with detailed explanation and rationales for each recommendation is included with our report at the end of this document.

During the community forums, many participants expressed profound mistrust and animosity towards the style of policing they encountered, particularly during protests , with valid questions about whether the Department is truly open to changing its tactics and if these forums ha d any chance of leading to meaningful change. The Commission was disappointed and frustrated that the City Council chose to approve SPD’s MEU policy and annual report without requiring significant changes during its September 5, 2023 meeting. Without agendizing this Commission’s report, the Council missed an critical opportunity to demonstrate that it meaningful ly consider s the community’s feedback in policing policies and .

We remain concerned this action has served to reinforce the perception that these community forums are simply about placating the public rather than providing real opportunities for reform.

Evaluating SPD Response to SCPRC Recommendations for Year 2018 and 2019 SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 6

Sacramento City Code sec 2.110.030 provides that the SCPRC “shall advise and make recommendations to the City council regarding police policy, procedures, and best practices, including those related to community relations, hiring, and training best practices.” However, the code is silent on how the recommendations should be communicated to the SPD and the City Council.

Since its inception in 2016, the SCPRC has issued and presented over 146 recommendations to the City Council. These recommendations were approved by the SCPRC and presented to the City Council in four tranches in 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 . During this time, the City Council has taken action on 7 of these recommendations.

In November 2021, the City Auditor released Report# 2021/22-06| titled Audit of the Sacramento
Community Police Review Commission: Renewed Focus on Cooperation is Urgently Needed.

One of the Auditor’s findings was that “the recommendations presented in 2019 and 2020 were written largely as stand-alone recommendations without sufficient support or justification when compared to other civilian oversight agencies. ”

The Auditor further noted that the lack of additional background information providing justification for the recommendations was one of the reasons why the Sacramento Police Department and the City Council were not able to support, respond to, or implement SCPRC recommendations. This inaction by City Council perpetuates the perception that the Commission’s work, and by extension, the community’s feedback regarding policing practices, are not important to the Mayor or Councilmembers .

To address this criticism, in 2023 the Commission in collaboration with SPD, created a new process for recommendations. The first step was creating a standardized template for how recommendations would be captured. This template is helping implement the Auditor’s recommendation and the new document creates an expectation for the Commission to provide , to the extent possible, specific details, relevant examples and resources, and actionable language to guide proposed actions SPD. This document has made it easier for SPD to provide formal written response to each recommendation.

In addition, the Commission has worked closely with SPD and has established biweekly meetings with a subgroup of the Commissioners. These biweekly meetings allow for in-depth policy discussions and facilitate learning and greater understanding between the parties involved.

The Commission is in the process of revisiting past recommendations and is transferring all 129 recommendations to the new template and process .

Using this new approach, the Commission and SPD have reviewed and discussed the 2018 and 2019 recommendations . The Commission has completed its evaluation of the Department’s response to these recommendations and are resubmitting them for consideration and adjudication by the City Council.

The Commission hopes that by working with SPD and establishing a formal process to ensure that the recommendations are documented more effectively , in response to the City Auditor, City SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 7

Council will act on past recommendations. Decisive action by the City Council is crucial to the Commission and SPD’s transparency, credibility, and accountability .

Search and Seizure Policy Review and 2023 Recommendations

On June 20 th, 2023, the Office of Public Accountability (OSPA ) presented to the Sacramento City Council their audit findings which focused on the improper search and seizure by the Sacramento Police Department ( SPD). OPSA oversight practitioners performed this external audit of the Sacramento Police Department’s misconduct complaint cases that encompass the allegation of ‘Improper Search and Seizure.’

Following the June presentation, the Commission received a presentation from OPSA based on this report’s findings and recommendations. After reviewing the report and engaging with Dr.

Watson and Inspector General Dwight A. White, the Commission concurred with all the audit’s findings and recommendations. While some recommendations spoke for themselves, Commissioners wished to see more explicit detail in the recommendations and identified adjacent concerns related to Search and Seizure practices, including accountability and organizational culture . In response, the Commission has produced the following recommendations:

1. Create a standalone, affirmative Fourth Amendment policy governing SPD’s search and seizure policies, procedures, and practices. This policy should clearly articulate SPD’s authority, procedures, and limits for conducting all manner of search and seizure practices, including but not limited to verbatim language of the US Constitution’s Fourth Amendment.

2. Establish a standalone, affirmative SPD policy governing the use of pat -downs, consent searches, investigatory stops, and investigative detentions. This policy should provide clear, detailed descriptions of SPD’s authority, procedures and limits for conducting pat - downs, consent searches, investigatory stops and investigative detentions . It should also apply to all investigations given by assignment or self -initiated by SPD officers, and use language that unequivocally requires SPD officers to clearly articulate in their reports why they stopped a person and/or why they felt the need to pat down the person.

3. Establish a standalone, affirmative policy that clearly defines and articulates SPD's authority, procedures, and limits upon conducting searches or seizures of cell phones, computers, digital storage devices, and other electronic or digital property. The policy should require SPD officers to report all incidents where such devices are searched or seized, including why they searched a person's device(s) and/or why they felt the need to seize the device(s).

4. Establish a standalone, affirmative policy that clearly defines and articulates SPD's authority, procedures, and limits for conducting probation searches. The policy should use affirmative language that requires SPD officers to notify probationers of their rights when conducting probation searches and non-probationers of warrantless searches , as well as report all incidents where probation searches or warrantless search es, including SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 8

why they initiated a search waiver, whether non -probationers were searched, and/or why they felt the need to search non-probationers in the vicinity.

5. Require SPD to update and consolidate all existing procedures relevant to recovering, storing, impounding or seizing motor vehicles into a single, affirmative policy that clearly outlines and articulates SPD’s authority, procedures, and limits for towing motor vehicles, releasing personal property from seized vehicles and releasing vehicle owners or their passengers from police custody when their vehicles are being towed. This policy should unequivocally require SPD officers to report all incidents where vehicles have been towed or seized, including why they initiated the towing and whether the vehicle has been seized under asset forfeiture.

6. Establish a standalone, affirmative policy that that clearly defines and articulates SPD's authority, procedures, and limits for engaging youth, juveniles or children under the age of 18 years. The policy should explicitly recognize youth or minors as a protected class of people. The policy should include a zero-tolerance code of conduct that requires SPD personnel to ensure the rights, dignity and well-being of such protected persons are respected and ensured in the performance of their duties.

7. Establish a standalone, affirmative policy that clearly defines and articulates SPD's authority, procedures, and limits for performing welfare checks, warrantless entry and conducting warrantless searches of private property. The policy should apply to all investigations given by assignment or self -initiated by SPD officers, and use affirmative language that unequivocally requires SPD officers to report all incidents where a welfare check , warrantless entry or search of a private residence was conducted, including why they felt a welfare check or warrantless entry was necessary, and why they felt the need to conduct a search without a warrant.

8. Establish a standalone, affirmative policy that specifically outlines SPD procedures for interacting with people who have a concealed weapon license and carrying their weapon at the time of the interaction. Th e policy should consider all instances of SPD officers drawing their weapons against civilians during an encounter as a reportable Use of Force (UOF), requiring SPD officers to report all incidents involving a CCW or other licensed firearm holder where officers draw their firearms during interactions with licensed firearm holders, including why they stopped the person and/or why they felt the need to draw their weapon.

9. Establish a standalone, affirmative SPD policy governing traffic enforcement policies, practices, and procedures. T his policy should provide clear, detailed descriptions of SPD’s authority, procedures, and limits for conducting traffic stops, vehicle searches, or other investigative practices involving motorists or vehicles , using affirmative language that requires SPD officers to clearly articulate in their reports why they stopped a motorist, whether the vehicle was searched or the driver was handcuffed, and why they felt the need to detain and/or handcuff the motorist. This policy should unequivocally eliminate the use of pretextual stops within the City of Sacramento.

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 9

10. Separate the Internal Affairs Division from the Sacramento Police Department and re- organize it as a civilian-led division under the Office of Public Safety Accountability for the purpose of independent civilian oversight. Establish a clear outline of procedures and zero-tolerance code of conduct for SPD supervising personnel to investigate all police misconduct complaint cases within an employee’s assigned division, including requiring SPD supervisors and Internal Affairs Division personnel to turn over all documents and materials related to a misconduct complaint case to the Office of Public Safety Accountability for review and clearance before the case may be closed and any disciplinary action taken.

11. Establish a standalone, affirmative policy for SPD’s use of asset forfeitures. The policy should clearly define and articulate a police officer’s authority , procedures, and limits for seizing private property based on their suspicion of its connection to a crime. When a vehicle is seized under asset forfeiture, this policy should unequivocally require officers to specify what criminal violations the vehicle or the personal property therein is suspected of being connected with in their reports.

12. Establish a standalone, affirmative policy that that clearly defines and articulates SPD's authority, procedures, and limits for engaging pregnant persons. The policy should explicitly recognize pregnant persons as a protected class that includes a zero-tolerance code of conduct and disciplinary policy that requires SPD personnel to ensure the rights, dignity and well -being of such protected persons are respected and ensured in the performance of their duties , including but not limited to, requiring officers to exhaust de - escalation tactics before deadly force is authorized and prohibiting handcuffing a pregnant person undergoing childbirth.

13. Establish a standalone, affirmative policy that that clearly defines and articulates SPD's authority, procedures, and limits for engaging disabled persons. The policy should explicitly recognize disabled persons as a protected class that includes a zero-tolerance code of conduct and disciplinary policy that requires SPD personnel to ensure the rights, dignity and well -being of such protected persons are respected and ensured in the performance of their duties , including but not limited to, requiring officers to exhaust de - escalation tactics before deadly force is authorized and prohibiting less lethal or deadly force against disabled persons with limited mobility.

14. Upon approval by the Office of the Chief, require SPD to submit new General Order s, Reference Manual s, or significant updates to the Dpartment’s operational polic ies for SCPRC to review and provide a written evaluation within 45 days before it is activated .

Upon activation, this policy should be publicly available and accessible on the City’s website. Reviews should be limited to policies and procedures relevant to the Commission’s purview, including community relations, hiring, and training best practices.

15. Require SPD to update its Policy and Procedures webpage to list all General Orders and Reference Manuals relevant to Department Structure, Labor and Human Resources, Policy Interactions and Computer Usage, Department Equipment and Operational SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 10

Procedures. The Policy and Procedure webpage should clearly articulate the distinction between Department policy, procedural manuals, and their interactions in the Department ’s day-to-day operations and actions. For General Orders or Reference Manuals considered exempt from disclosure under Government Code section 7923.600(a), the Department should still list the General Order or Reference Manual Number and Name in the appropriate sections its page.

16. With the exception of personally identifiable information and/or sensitive information relevant to the Safety of SPD officers under Government Code section 7922.000, r equire SPD to remove redactions from General Orders and Reference Manuals relevant to the Policy Interactions and Operational Procedures , including but not limited to: Use of Force, Search and Seizure, Surveillance, including Body-Worn / In -Car Cameras, Police Observational Devices, and Automated License Plate Readers , Foot and V ehicle Pursuits, Asset Forfeitures , Traffic Enforcement , Disciplinary Policy, Internal Investigations.

Policies with redactions should include a foreword explaining why the Department considers it necessary to redact the information and/or how it might jeopardize the officer safety.

A comprehensive list of our 2023 Recommendations along with detailed descriptions and rationales for each recommendation is included at the end of this document.

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 11

Proposed Work Plan for 2024

The SCPRC meets publicly about 10 times a year with meetings usually ranging from one to three hours. While these meetings are staffed by the City Clerk’s office, the Commission lacks formal day -to-day staffing. As such, it is up to the Commissioners to prioritize the policy items that will guide the work for each year.

For each policy item, the Commission will need commissioners to volunteer to conduct research, analyze complex policy; and meet with the Sacramento Police Department, community stakeholders, academia, and other experts. This will ensure that the deep policy analysis, which cannot be conducted in real -time during Commission meetings, is informed. Any information gathered and policy recommendations formulated will be brought to the body for discussion, evaluation and action.

2024 Goals and Objectives

1. Conduct Joint Workshop with City Council to Address City Auditor’s Recommendations to:
a. Identify dedicated staffing for the Commission
b. Clarify City Code to establish Commission’s Purpose as a civilian oversight body with clear roles, powers, and duties

2. Review and evaluate SPD responses for outstanding r ecommendations for years 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023

3. Present past years’ SCPRC recommendations to City Council for 2021, 2022, and 2023

4. Organize up to 6 public community forums and stakeholder meetings related to relevant public safety topics
a. MEU Forums (up to 3 meetrings)
b. Forum / Workshop on SPD’s Response to Homelessness
c. Forum / Workshop on SPD’s Traffic Safety Enforcement d. Forum / Workshop on SPD’s Community Engagement Programs / Initiatives

5. Complete and present Commission’s Community Report on SPD’s MEU Policy for 2024

6. Draft and Complete Recommendations and Annual Report for 2024

7. Begin drafting 2025 Workplan & Priorities before end of year

Community Policing and Response
Research and Outreach Goals Volunteers
• Review SPD policies , training
and procedures related to
professional conduct , vehicle
chases, traffic enforcement,
non-emergency response, and
community policing activities.
• Conduct research into non-
• In collaboration with
community-based
organizations, facilitate up
to 3 community forums
related to traffic safety,
homelessneess response,
and community policing
• Propose and agendize
items for discussion at
monthly public meetings
• Perform research and
provide presentations to
the Commission
• Organize stakeholder
SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 12

emergency response s to
homelessness, traffic safety, and
violence prevention. Look at
best practices from other cities.
• Study and review SPD 's
community policing programs ,
including Community
Advancement Academy and
Violent Crime Reduction
Strategy.
programs.
• Educate community
members about their rights
in community-police
interactions
• Provide recommendations
to the Commission for
future action related to
project implementation
meetings and community
forums
• Draft and synthesize
proposed
recommendations

SPD Strategic Planning and Budget Management
Research and Outreach Goals Volunteers
• Review SPD policies , trainings
and procedures related to
strategic planning, staffing
assignments, financial
accounting, and budgetary
management
• Review SPD Fiscal Year s
2022/23 and 2023/ 24 to assess
strategic objectives and
spending priorities (proposed vs
actual trends)
• Gather information and ask
question of the City Manager,
SPD staff and departments to
understand the budgeting
process and spending trends
• Understand SPD’s
Process and
Considerations for
Annual Strategic
Planning / Goal-Setting
• Have a current Fiscal
Analysis (proposed vs
actual trends) of SPD
Budget Spending
• Provide
recommendations to the
Commission for future
action related to project
implementation
• Propose and agendize
items for discussion at
monthly public meetings
• Perform research and
provide presentations to
the Commission
• Organize and participate
in stakeholder meetings
and community forums
• Draft proposed
recommendations
Civilian Oversight Engagement and Function (Standing Priority) Research and Outreach Goals Volunteers
• Work with SPD, City
Manager’s Office, City
Attorney’s Office and any other
relevant department to create a
process for Commission’s
policy recommendations to
move forward for City Council
action.
• Conduct research into civilian
oversight models, best practices,
and effective methods for
• Enhance Commission’s
effectiveness for
reviewing and
monitoring SPD
• Improve the
Commission’s
effectiveness for
community engagement
in civilian oversight of
SPD
• Present past years’
• Propose and agendize
items for discussion
• Perform research and
provide presentations to
the Commission
• Organize and participate
in stakeholder meetings
and community forums
• Draft and synthesize
proposed
recommendations
SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 13

community engagement in
Commission work
• Monitor and evaluate
implementation of Commission
recommendations
• Work with SPD to review and
discuss which recommendations
have been adopted, rejected, or
if no action has been taken.
recommendations to City
Council’s Law &
Legislation Committee
using the standardized
format
• Move forward
outstanding
recommendations from
past years for full City
Council action.
• In collaboration with
SPD and community-
based organizations,
conduct up to 3
community forums
related to military
equipment use
• Provide
recommendations to the
City Council for future
changes of MEU General
Order 410.06 based on
community feedback

2024 SCPRC Meeting Calender
Meeting Discussion Items Key Deliverables
January • Presentation from SPD on MEU
General Order Updates & Policy
Review Committee Creation
• SPD Written Responses to 2018-2019
Recommendations
• 2023 Recommendations and Annual
Report
• 2024 Workplan Priorities
Stakeholder Meetings:
• Complete evaluation of SPD
responses to 2019 recommendations
• Move forward Joint Workshop with
City Council
SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 14

February • OPSA Audit Update on Improper
Search and Seizure
• Stakeholder Meetings
Stakeholder Meetings:
• Begin evaluation of SPD responses
to 2020 recommendations
• Draft and synthesize 2024
community outreach process es
March • Discussion of 2024 Community
Engagement Process for MEU
• Discussion of Community
Engagement Process related to Non -
Emergency Response, Mental
Health Crisis Response, and Traffic
Safety
• Joint Workshop with City Council
to address City Auditor’s
Recommendations
• Stakeholder Meetings
Stakeholder Meetings:
• Complete evaluation of SPD
responses to 2020
Recommendations
• Review SPD policies and
procedures related to non-
emergency response, including
homelessness
• Finalize dates and venues for 2024
Community Forums
April • Presentation from the Department of
Community Response on activities
related to Homelessness
• Presentation from SPD’s Impact Team
about Homelessness and Mental Health
Crisis Response policies and
procedures
• Community Workshop on City
Response to Homelessness (conducted
at a community -based venue)
• Presentation to City Council’s Law &
Legislation Committee for years 2021,
2022, and 2023
• Stakeholder Meetings
Stakeholder Meetings:
• Complete evaluation of SPD
Responses to 2020
Recommendations (if applicable)
• Begin evaluation of SPD responses
to 2021 Recommendations
• Begin promotion for MEU
Community Forums
• Review SPD policies and
procedures related to vehicle
pursuits and traffic enforcement
May • Presentation on SPD’s 2023 Military
Equipment Use and Policy Updates
• Conduct first MEU Community Forum
for 2024
• Presentation from SPD ’s Metro
Division on Traffic Enforcement
Policies, Procedures , and Procedures
• Stakeholder meetings
Stakeholder Meetings:
• Review draft of SPD’s annual
military equipment use report for
2023
• Review SPD Budget and Objectives
for FY2022/23 and FY2023/24
SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 15

June • Presentation on RIP A Report/Data for
Sacramento
• Presentation from OPSA on 2023
Annual Complaint Activities Report
• Presentation from Inspector General on
Officer -Involved Shooting
Investigations
• Presentation from SPD and/or City
Manager’s Office on SPD Budgetary
Process, Policies, and Growth Planning
• Conduct second MEU Community
Forum for 2024
• Stakeholder m eetings
Stakeholder Meetings:
• Review SPD policies and
procedures related to mental
health crisis response
• Complete evaluations of SPD
responses to 2021
Recommendations (if applicable)
July • Conduct third MEU Community Forum
for 2024
• Stakeholder m eetings
Stakeholder meetings:
• Draft and synthesize Com mission
MEU Report and
Recommendations based on
community feedback
• Begin evaluation of SPD responses
to 2022 Recommendations
August • Discussion of Commission MEU
Report and Recommendations
• Presentation of Commission MEU
Report and Recommendations to City
Council’s Law & Legislation
Committee
• Community Workshop on Traffic
Safety (conducted at a community-
based venue in Central City)
• Stakeholder m eetings
Stakeholder meetings:
• Review Draft of Commission
MEU Report and
Recommendations with SPD
• Review SPD policies and
procedures related to violence
prevention, gang enforcement
• Complete evaluation of SPD
responses to 2022
Recommendations (if applicable)
September • Presentation of Commission MEU
Report and Recommendations to full
City Council (prior to SPD’s MEU
Policy/Report Approval)
• Presentation of Sacramento County’s
Community Wellness Response Teams
on Mental Health Crisis Response Calls
• Stakeholder m eetings
Stakeholder meetings:
• Begin evaluation of SPD responses
to 2023 Recommendations
• Begin drafting 2024
Recommendations
• Review Office of Violence
Prevention Reports
• Research Violence Prevention
efforts in comparable jurisdictions
SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 16

October • Presentation from Office of Violence
Prevention on activities related to youth
violence prevention and other youth
programs
• Community Workshop on City’s
Response to Youth Violence
(conducted in South Sacramento)
• Discussion of 2024
Recommendations and Annual
Report
• Discussion of 2025 Workplan &
Commission Priorities
• Stakeholder m eetings
Stakeholder meetings:
• Draft 2024 Recommendations and
Annual Report
• Complete evaluation of SPD
responses to 2023
Recommendations (if applicable)
November • Stakeholder meetings Stakeholder meetings:
• Begin drafting Commission ’s
2025 Workplan
• Complete synthesis of 2024
Recommendations and Annual
Report
December • Approval of 2024
Recommendations and Annual
Report
• Approval of 2025 Workplan
Stakeholder meetings:
• Complete synthesis of
Commission’s 2025 Workplan

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 17

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2018 Diversity #1

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 09/10/2018

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2018

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 05/31/2023

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
SPD does not have a cohesive overarching plan to improve the diversity of the SPD.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): Develop a long-term comprehensive sustainable diversity and culture change plan— with measurable goals and outcomes that addresses gender issues and institutionalized racism. In regard to the latter, the plan should specifically address historic systemic racial issues between the police and people of color, particularly African Americans. The plan should also address ethnic groups and communities whose distrust of law enforcement impacts diversification. The planning should include:
• A Diversity Mission Statement with key principles and core values. • A committee should be assembled for this purpose that includes police officer representatives, community representatives, and commission representation. • An annual report card/matrix that shows the progress of recruitment goals and the measurable recommendations below.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
SPD 2017 -2019 report states that the demographics of the SPD officers are as follows: 69% White, 16% Hispanic, 8% Black in 2019; 73% White, 10% Hispanic, 7% Black in 2018; and 77% White, 10% Hispanic, 8% Asian in 2017 while the demographics of the city are: White: 43.54%, Asian: 19.29%, Black or African American: 13.48%, Other race: 11.62%, Two or more races: 9.61%, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander:

1.65%, Native American:, 0.79%. These demographics suggest that DPD has work to go do ensure the SPD force represents the population they serve.

SPD 2017-2019 report link:
https://www.cityofsacramento.org/-/media/Corporate/Files/Police/Transparency/UOF/SPD-UOF-and- Arrest-Data-Comparison-Report-2017-2019-Final-December-2020-Release.pdf?la=en

SPD RESPONSE
The Sacramento Police Department (SPD) Community Advancement Academy (formerly Cops and Clergy Academy) offers community members a Q&A with department leadership, panel interview the chief, transparency conversations, employee complaint and investigation processes, presentation of current violent crime reduction strategies, and a tour of the Police Academy. The primary goal of the program is to unite community leaders with the SPD, reduce gang violence, and build community trust. https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Police/Resources/Cops-and-Clergy

Since 2015, SPD officers have volunteered and presented during the five-week, Links to Law Enforcement program of three cohorts from African American, Latino, and Asian community groups in the Sacramento region. Officers provide insights of the recruiting and application process, police academy, and the law enforcement career from a minority’s perspective. https://asianresources.org/links-to-law-enforcement

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 18

SPD has enhanced its youth pipeline by hosting a cadet program and hiring student trainees and limited- term community service officers:
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/Police/Join-SPD/Youth-Pipelines

SPD has four full-time Magnet Program officers at four area high schools to manage the four-year Criminal Justice Academy:
https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Police/Participate/Youth-Programs

https://sacpolicefoundation.org/wordpress/program/criminal-justice-academy/

The Sacramento Police Activities League is a non-profit organization that is staffed with officers to coach and mentor through numerous sports:
https://www.sacpal.org/

SPD has partnered with area colleges to implement the Law Enforcement Candidate Scholars’ (LECS) Program:
https://www.csus.edu/college/health-human-services/criminal-justice/law-enforcement-candidate- scholars.html

In 2019, Outreach and Engagement Division revamped Sacramento Police Department’s (SPD) recruiting efforts using radio advertisements, billboards, social media accounts, and “Be the Difference” joinsacpd.org campaign. Additionally, the entire hiring process was organized with video vignettes nested inside step-by-step webpage.

SPD organized the Female Fitness Challenge in September 2022, which focused on prospective female applicants by providing the POST Work Sample Test Battery, plank challenge, and an opportunity to interact with female officers.
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/female-fitness-challenge-tickets-323373216997

In March 2022, Chief Lester committed and pledged to the 30X30:
https://30x30initiative.org/about-30x30/

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
In 2018, the City of Sacramento created the Office of Diversity & Equity (ODE) and hired its first Diversity and Equity Manager, Aimee Barnes, to lead efforts to advance racial equity in the City’s workforce.

Shortly after she joined the City, Barnes advocated for the City to become a member of The Government Alliance on Race and Equity (GARE), a national network of governments working to achieve racial equity and advancement opportunities for all. The City also began developing a Race and Gender Equity Action Plan, designed to eliminate institutional and structural barriers to hiring, training, leadership and employment practices, with the goal of providing accessible and inclusive employment opportunities.

The mission of ODE is to move forward with urgency and purpose with the creation, implementation, and maintenance of a more equitable and inclusive City of Sacramento by facilitating the integration of greater representation, fairness, belonging, and care into our policies, protocols, practices, and workplaces.

The overall goal is to work closely with all City departments and offices to ensure that support for SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 19

diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging is integrated into decision making, planning, and implementation throughout all structures, services, policies, practices, and procedures. http://www.cityofsacramento.org/HR/Divisions/Diversity-Equity

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (NOVEMBER 2023)
Partially Implemented. The commission’s recommendation included a comprehensive plan with at least three components (see bullet points in recommendation). While SPD lists many worthwhile activities that they have engaged in, there does not seem to be a comprehensive plan, a review committee, or a public facing document that shows progress. In addition, the impact of the activities SPD listed remains unclear. Further data is needed to understand their effectiveness.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/ REQUESTS (NOVEMBER 2023)
1) Can the commission get a copy of the plan if one was created? 2) How have successful applications or diversity improved?

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 20

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 21

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2018 Diversity #2

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 09/10/2018

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2018

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 05/31/2023

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION X DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
There is a desire from the public to increase cultural competency of the SPD.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): Phase in a requirement of an ethnic studies course as part of the college course requirement for new recruits. For officers that transfer from another police department, require them to take a course at a community college within their first 2 years. The requirement for officers that transfer to SPD will be contingent upon negotiations with labor.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
A few hours or even days of anti-bias training seem to be insufficient to increase cultural competency.

Requiring an Ethnic Studies course would allow officers to delve deeper into issues of racism and discrimination and allow further understanding that may impact how they interact with communities in Sacramento.

SPD RESPONSE
City Council staff report by Deputy Chief Lester on 06/01/2021:
https://sacramento.granicus.com/player/clip/4964?meta_id=631991

The Sacramento Police Department supports ethnic studies courses with receipt of funding and contractual modifications to existing labor agreements.

The department began presenting the Racial Profiling Update in 2014. Since then, per POST, we have presented the course every five years.

In 2016, SPD presented procedural justice and fair and impartial policing during annual Continued Professional Training (CPT).

In 2020, SPD sent approximately 30 sworn personnel to the American Leadership Forum. https://www.alf-mvc.org/

In 2021, Chief of Police Daniel Hahn (ret.) presented a course regarding Cultural Competency/Historical Bias and “How We Got Here” to each sworn member of the department at CPT. The course was taught during strategic communications, which contained portions dedicated to implicit bias.

In 2022, strategic communications were instructed during CPT.

SPD’s procedural justice course is POST certified and is currently being recertified for presentation during the racial profiling update for CPT 2024.

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 22

SPD Community Advancement Academy (formerly Cops and Clergy Academy) offers community members a Q&A with department leadership, panel interview the chief, transparency conversations, employee complaint and investigation processes, presentation of current violent crime reduction strategies, and a tour of the Police Academy. The primary goal of the program is to unite community leaders with the SPD, reduce gang violence, and build community trust. https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Police/Resources/Cops-and-Clergy

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
N/A

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (NOVEMBER 2023)
Not Implemented. While the SPD lists several important trainings, these are different from a college- level ethnic studies requirement. This recommendation has at least two parts: SPD could on its own require an ethnic studies course for new recruits as part of their college credit requirement and the city can allocate funding and require existing staff to take an ethnic studies course at a local community college or fund a faculty to teach a course specifically for its officers.

SCPRC recognizes that full implementation of this recommendation could be costly and would require additional discussions with the union officials.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/ REQUESTS
N/A

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 23

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2018 Diversity #3

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 09/10/2018

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2018

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 05/31/2023

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
The SPD does not reflect the communities they serve.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): Review SPD's current recruitment programs and practices to determine if there could be improvement (hiring materials, visibility at community events, work with community- based organizations to identify viable applicants, increase diversity of recruiting personnel, expansion of the cadet programs).

1.65%, Native American:, 0.79%. These demographics suggest that DPD has work to go do ensure the SPD force represents the population they serve.

SPD 2017-2019 report link: https://www.cityofsacramento.org/- /media/Corporate/Files/Police/Transparency/UOF/SPD-UOF-and-Arrest-Data-Comparison-Report-2017- 2019-Final-December-2020-Release.pdf?la=en

SPD RESPONSE
In 2014, SPD received over 8,500 applicants in response to posted job openings and announcements. In 2022, SPD only received 850 applicants for the same postings.

SPD’s Outreach and Engagement Division, Community Advancement Unit, has been conducting surveys and interviews of nonresponsive applicants. As a result, Community Advancement Unit officers mentor applicants and assist through the hiring process.

The Outreach and Engagement Division has also refined SPD’s recruiting programs:
• Regular hiring workshops
• Ride-along program
• Bootcamp Wednesdays
• Social networking presence
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/Police/Join-SPD/Recruiting-Programs

In 2019, Outreach and Engagement Division revamped SPD’s recruiting efforts using radio advertisements, billboards, social media accounts, and “Be the Difference” joinsacpd.org campaign.

Additionally, the entire hiring process was organized with video vignettes nested inside step-by-step webpage.

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 24

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
N/A

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (NOVEMBER 2023)
Fully Implemented. SPD appears to have implemented this recommendation. It would be helpful to know if the activities identified are increasing diversity.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/ REQUESTS
1) How is SPD measuring success in increasing diversity in applicants?

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 25

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 26

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2018 Diversity #4

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 09/10/2018

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2018

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 05/31/2023

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
SPD has a number of programs that directly or indirectly impact recruitment of peace officer cadets.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): Review recruitment/outreach efforts to analyze "what is working" and eliminate or tweak areas that indicate low return or lack of measurability.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
SPD has some programs meant to directly attract applicants while other programs are more community engagement. SPD should review which programs are strictly meant to attract applicants and see how they can adopt metrics to measure success, including success in the recruiting and hiring of diverse cadets.

SPD RESPONSE
In 2014, SPD received over 8,500 applicants in response to posted job openings and announcements. In 2022, SPD only received 850 applicants for the same postings.

In 2019, Outreach and Engagement Division revamped SPD’s recruiting efforts using radio advertisements, billboards, social media accounts, and “Be the Difference” joinsacpd.org campaign.

Additionally, the entire hiring process was organized with video vignettes nested inside step-by-step webpage.

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
N/A

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (NOVEMBER 2023)

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 27

Partially Implemented. While it seems SPD implemented this recommendation, it is unclear if SPD eliminated any programs. Additionally, it is difficult to know if the outlined activities are improving diversity.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/ REQUESTS
1) If there was an analysis created, can it be shared with the commission? 2) Were there any programs that were eliminated or changed? 3) How have successful applications or diversity improved? 4) How does SPD measure success in these areas?
5) Is there additional statistical information about who applies and who gets hired?

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 28

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 29

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2018 Diversity #5

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 09/10/2018

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2018

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT X
RETURNED TO SCPRC 05/31/2023

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
The city is not sharing information with the SPD in regard to the demographics of the applicants.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): When applications are submitted to Sacramento HR for police officer, lateral transfer, or non- sworn police officer positions, if the applicant is rejected either initially or during the examination selection process, HR should provide SPD data regarding where the applicant said s/he first engaged with SPD and demographic data for ALL applicants including data on local applicants.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
If the city were to share this applicant data, the SPD could do some analysis on the demographics of its applicants - those who succeed and those who don't. This data could be helpful to identify the barriers to hiring more diverse workforce.

SPD RESPONSE
The Sacramento Police Department is unable to implement as this topic is under the direction of City of Sacramento Human Resources.

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
City of Sacramento Human Resources
https://www.cityofsacramento.org/HR

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (NOVEMBER 2023)
Not Implemented. There is a lack of clarity on whether SPD had a conversation with Sacramento’s Human Resource office to see if this recommendation could be implemented. The City Council should direct SPD to work with the Human Resources office to collect this data.

When either department can demonstrate that this data is being shared with SPD on a routine basis, the Commission will consider this fully implemented.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/ REQUESTS
1) Is SPD (or City Manager’s Office) willing to ask Sacramento City’s HR staff if they are willing to share this information with SPD?
2) Is there a City Policy prohibiting this information sharing? 3) Could a community hiring committee be created to help?

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 30

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 31

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2018 Diversity #6

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 09/10/2018

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2018

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 05/31/2023

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
The SPD does not reflect the communities they serve.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): Review the recruitment process for cultural and gender bias, including but not limited to the application and background investigation process.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
It is a good practice to review processes to ensure they are free of bias and that these are not a barrier to hiring diverse officers.

SPD RESPONSE
In 2019, Outreach and Engagement Division revamped SPD’s recruiting efforts using radio advertisements, billboards, social media accounts, and “Be the Difference” joinsacpd.org campaign.

Additionally, the entire hiring process was organized with video vignettes nested inside step-by-step webpage.

SPD’s Personnel Services background investigators utilize POST’s Background Investigation Manual:
https://post.ca.gov/portals/0/post_docs/publications/background-investigation- manual/Background_Investigation.pdf

SPD has four full-time Magnet Program officers at four area high schools to manage the four-year Criminal Justice Academy:
https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Police/Participate/Youth-Programs https://sacpolicefoundation.org/wordpress/program/criminal-justice-academy/

The Sacramento Police Activities League is a non-profit organization that is staffed with officers to coach and mentor through numerous sports:
https://www.sacpal.org/

In March 2022, Chief Lester committed and pledged to the 30X30:
https://30x30initiative.org/about-30x30/

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 32

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
N/A

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (NOVEMBER 2023)
Fully Implemented. SPD appears to have implemented this recommendation.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/ REQUESTS
1) What impacts have these policy changes had on the Department’s diversity?

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 33

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2018 Diversity #7

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 09/10/2018

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2018

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 05/31/2023

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
It is unclear how many officers live in the city limits.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): Incentivize SPD management (those exempt from the union) to live in the City of Sacramento.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
It is a good practice to have officers live in the neighborhoods they service.

SPD RESPONSE
The 2022-2023 Sacramento Police Officers Association labor agreement with the City of Sacramento provided a city residency incentive.
https://www.cityofsacramento.org/-
/media/Corporate/Files/HR/Divisions/LaborRelations/Agreements/SPOA.pdf?la=en

The residency incentive is not currently incorporated within the Sacramento City Exempt Employees Association’s labor agreement.
https://www.cityofsacramento.org/HR/Divisions/Labor-Relations/Labor-Agreements

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
N/A

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (NOVEMBER 2023)
Not Implemented. SPD has a residency incentive for rank-and-file police officers but, not for exempt employees (SPD management). While the Commission recognizes the residency incentive included in the labor agreement with SPOA, this recommendation explicitly called for incentivizing SPD management.

SPD management are exempt employees and as such are not covered by the SPOA agreement.

City Council could approve a residency incentive for SPD management.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/ REQUESTS
N/A

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 34

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 35

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2018 Diversity #8

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 09/10/2018

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2018

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 05/31/2023

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
The city should explore other incentives to attract diverse peace officers.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): Incentivize interest in SPD (e.g., scholarships and requirement for service).

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
The SPD currently offers modest educational funding for officers. Offering enhanced educational support could increase applicants and also benefit SPD.

SPD RESPONSE
City Council staff report by Deputy Chief Lester on 06/01/2021:
https://sacramento.granicus.com/player/clip/4964?meta_id=631991

The Sacramento Police Department supports all employees to seek higher levels of education.

The 2021-2023 Local 39 labor agreement with the City of Sacramento details tuition reimbursement. https://www.cityofsacramento.org/-
/media/Corporate/Files/HR/Divisions/LaborRelations/Agreements/39MOUPlantOps.pdf?la=en

The 2022-2023 Sacramento Police Officers Association labor agreement with the City of Sacramento details tuition reimbursement.
https://www.cityofsacramento.org/-
/media/Corporate/Files/HR/Divisions/LaborRelations/Agreements/SPOA.pdf?la=en

The 2021-2023 Sacramento City Exempt Employees Association labor agreement with the City of Sacramento details tuition reimbursement.
https://www.cityofsacramento.org/-
/media/Corporate/Files/HR/Divisions/LaborRelations/Agreements/SCXEA.pdf?la=en

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
N/A

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (NOVEMBER 2023)
Fully Implemented. SPD has included incentives to attract applicants interested in scholarships and educational support.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/ REQUESTS

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 36

N/A

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 37

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2018 Diversity #9

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 09/10/2018

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2018

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 05/31/2023

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
Written exams have been identified as a barrier for some officers.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): Conduct workshops to help/mentor applicants with written exams.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
The commission has been told that many officers don't show up to the written exam or fail the written exam. The idea here is that with a little support and mentoring, some of the applicants that may not take the exam will follow through on taking the exam.

SPD RESPONSE
In 2014, the Sacramento Police Department (SPD) received over 8,500 applicants in response to posted job openings and announcements. In 2022, SPD only received 850 applicants for the same postings.

The Outreach and Engagement Division is comprised of varied race, color, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, and military or veteran status. SPD’s Outreach and Engagement Division, Community Advancement Unit, has been conducting surveys and interviews of nonresponsive applicants. As a result, Community Advancement Unit officers mentor applicants and assist through the hiring process.

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
N/A

APPENDIX
N/A

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 38

SCPRC EVALUATION (NOVEMBER 2023)
Partially Implemented. While SPD has indicated it hosts hiring workshops, the Department does not show how any of these workshops specifically help or mentor applicants with their written exams.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/ REQUESTS
N/A

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 39

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 40

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2018 Diversity #10

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 09/10/2018

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2018

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 05/31/2023

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
The SPD does not reflect the communities they serve.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): Develop specific outreach efforts to women and LGBT candidates.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Targeted outreach is a standard practice to try to increase the representation of minority groups or targeted groups for a candidate pool and includes advertising in publications that serve minorities, women, and people with disabilities, as well as announcements to community-based organizations.

SPD RESPONSE
The Outreach and Engagement Division is comprised of varied race, color, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, and military or veteran status. Staff is regularly rotated to ensure additional staff has the opportunity to participate in the recruiting process.

The Sacramento Police Department (SPD) is committed to an inclusive environment within its agency and the community at large. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer or Questioning, and All Other (LGBTQ+) individuals in our community have the right to live without fear of discrimination or harassment. It has taken years to overcome the strife and distrust generated generations ago.

SPD is proud of its accomplishments in building relationships and trust with our City’s LGBTQ+ community, including local area businesses as well as SPD’s own LGBTQ+ employees. SPD has established itself as a leader in LGBTQ+ community relations for law enforcement agencies, and our LGBTQ+ Liaison frequently fields calls from cities all over the nation asking for guidance and advice on how we reach out to our City’s LGBTQ+ community.

SPD proactively established a Gender Awareness class, which has been attended by approximately 700 SPD officers and employees. SPD has previously reached out to local LGBTQ+ community groups to contribute to course curriculum and will continue to involve our community partners in our growth of this course.

SPD has a LGBTQ+ Liaison Program that includes one Lieutenant and one Officer: Lt. Eddie Macaulay, is responsible for community outreach and education both for SPD personnel and community members.

He develops, updates and then assists in the implementation of training as it relates to LGBTQ+ issues.

Officer Debrielle Browder is responsible for community outreach and education both for SPD personnel and community members; she is also the department's LGBTQ+ Youth Liaison.

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 41

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/female-fitness-challenge-tickets-323373216997

In March 2022, Chief Lester committed and pledged to the 30X30:
https://30x30initiative.org/about-30x30/

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
N/A

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (NOVEMBER 2023)
Fully Implemented. The Commission agrees that SPD has developed specific outreach efforts to recruit women and LGBTQ+ candidates.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/ REQUESTS
N/A

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 42

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 43

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2018 Diversity #11

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 09/10/2018

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2018

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 05/31/2023

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
Adopting a good hiring practice

Changes to Existing Policy(s): Officers/non officers involved in the hiring practice must be diverse in ethnic background, gender, and include civilians.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Having a diverse group of people involved in the hiring process is a good process to address possible biases.

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
N/A

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (NOVEMBER 2023)
Not Implemented. Apart from what SPD is stating, the Commission has not observed any evidence to show the level of diversity among SPD staff has increased within their Outreach and Engagement Division. Until the Department produces measurable data showing the demographics of its officers/non- officers involved in the hiring practice, the Commission does not consider this recommendation implemented.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/ REQUESTS
The Commission recognizes that labor law precludes SPD from directly asking applicants certain information. However, SPD’s hiring division could deduce, from information it already has, answers for the following questions:
1) How many women and officers of color currently serve in this division? 2) How many bilingual and/or ESL personnel currently serve in this division? 3) How many LGBTQ+ personnel currently serve in this division? 4) How many non-sworn officers and civilians currently serve in this division?

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 44

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2018 Diversity #12

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 09/10/2018

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2018

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 05/31/2023

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
Adopting a good hiring practice

Changes to Existing Policy(s): Officers/non officers involved in the hiring practice must be diverse in ethnic background, gender, and include civilians.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Having a diverse group of people involved in the hiring process can help to address possible biases.

SPD RESPONSE
This recommendation is almost identical to 2018 Diversity Item #11.

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
N/A

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (NOVEMBER 2023)
DUPLICATE TO #11.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/ REQUESTS
N/A

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 45

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2018 Diversity #13

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 09/10/2018

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2018

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 05/31/2023

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
Increase diversity in the Department.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): A layer of review should be added to ensure that when applicants are denied, it is based on a fair assessment, taking into consideration cultural norms.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Having a diverse group of people involved in the hiring process can help address possible biases.

SPD RESPONSE
SPD Personnel Services chain of command review all applications (including denied) up to and including retired Chief Hahn and current Chief Kathy Lester.

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
N/A

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (NOVEMBER 2023)
Not Implemented. The Commission has not observed any evidence in SPD general orders or other written policy to indicate this recommendation has been implemented. Since POST’s Background Investigation Manual does not explicitly outline the layer of review this recommendation calls for, the Commission would like Department to demonstrate where this policy is stated within its written policies and procedures.

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 46

SCPRC QUESTIONS/ REQUESTS
1) Over the last three years, the City of Sacramento has been shifting hiring policies to attract diverse applicants. It would be prudent for SPD to share with the Commission links to the new hiring practices and demonstrate how these practices comply with this recommendation.

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 47

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2018 Diversity #14

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 09/10/2018

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2018

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 05/31/2023

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
Increase diversity in the Department.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): To retain diverse officers, there needs to be a true opportunity for promotion. This includes mentorship for officers of color and women, while in the academy, during probation, and in preparation for promotional opportunities by officers of color and women.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Equity, inclusion, and diversity are not mutually exclusive; they are integral to success. Equity speaks to fairness and treatment to include equality of opportunity, while inclusion prompts an environment conducive to feedback openness. Diversity is concerned with representation and perspectives; when an organization establishes equity, it demonstrates that it values inclusion and diversity. Doing so is essential to law enforcement operations and their effectiveness within the community.

SPD RESPONSE
Throughout the Sacramento Police Academy, police recruits are assigned counselors that consist of the full-time Recruit Training Officers (RTO).

RTOs must comply with POST Regulation 1071:
https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I2384FEC15A1E11EC8227000D3A7C4BC3?viewType=FullT ext&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)

POST RTO Orientation Program:
https://lp.post.ca.gov/activity/3228

Field Training Officers must successfully complete a testing and selection process and complete a 40- hour POST Field Training Officer Course.

Since 2020, SPD has maintained a formal mentor program for new officers.

There is a longstanding mentorship tradition of experienced employees dedicating time (often off-duty) for the betterment of new officers and professional staff to achieve specialty team assignments and promotions.

Community members are routinely included in promotional panels and leadership training for all members of the department, from Supervisory Leadership Institute to executive training.

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
N/A

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 48

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (NOVEMBER 2023)
Partially Implemented. While SPD does show a level of mentorship for officers, it does not show how this applies specifically to women or officers of color while in the academy, during probation, and in preparation for promotional opportunities.

In fact, there are allegations raised in a December 2022 lawsuit filed by an SPD sergeant that officers of color have experienced systemic discrimination from Department leadership related to assignments, promotions, and other advancement opportunities. The Commission would like to see measurable data and other observable evidence showing that officers of color and women enjoy genuine opportunity for advancement.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/ REQUESTS
N/A

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 49

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2018 Diversity #15

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 09/10/2018

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW X
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2018

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 05/31/2023

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
Increase diversity in the Department.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): To retain diverse officers, there needs to be an opportunity for officers to provide feedback to their supervisors, without fear of repercussion and or retaliation.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Creating a safe environment where honest feedback can be provided without fear of retaliation is key to understanding what changes can be made within SPD to retain officers of color.

SPD RESPONSE
The Sacramento Police Department (SPD) does not have a formal process for subordinates to provide feedback of their direct supervisor’s performance.

Sergeants are mandated to successfully complete an 80-hour POST Supervisory Course which has a feedback (giving and receiving) component.
https://post.ca.gov/supervisory-course

GO 210.04 requires all employees to work in cooperative spirit and prohibits retaliation.

GO 220.01 and RM 220.01 outlines procedure to file a complaint for misconduct.

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
Whistleblower Hotline
https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Auditor/Whistleblower-Hotline

Office of Public Safety and Accountability
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/opsa

APPENDIX

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 50

Government Code, Title 5., Division 2., Part 1., Powers and Duties Common to Cities, Counties, and Other Agencies
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=53087 .6

SCPRC EVALUATION (NOVEMBER 2023)
Partially Implemented. The recent allegations of systematic discrimination against SPD officers of color raised in the December 2022 lawsuit, calls into question whether SPD is fostering a culture where subordinates can express constructive criticism to management and leadership without fear of retaliation. While written policies are a good first step towards changing cultural norms in a workplace, these efforts fall flat if the policies are not enforced. This is why the Commission would like to see further verification that relevant general orders and RMs are being followed by all SPD personnel before this recommendation is considered fully implemented.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/ REQUESTS
1) What system of tracking or record-keeping exists for feedback and complaints received by SPD sergeants?

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 51

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 52

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2018 Diversity #16

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 09/10/2018

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2018

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 05/31/2023

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
Improving community relations

Changes to Existing Policy(s): Provide better incentive pay to bilingual officers and reduce the burdens involved in the certification process.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
According to the SacBee, six languages are spoken at home in Sacramento by at least 1 percent of the population: Spanish; Russian; Hmong; Vietnamese; Tagalog and Chinese. Ensuring that peace officers are able to communicate with the communities they serve is key in developing those community relationships.

SPD RESPONSE
All three labor groups representing the groups of Sacramento Police Department (SPD) staff are offered bilingual incentive pay. As of January 2023, the SPD has 60 employees receiving bilingual incentive pay and are certified in the following languages:
• Chinese (Cantonese)
• Chinese (Mandarin)
• Dari
• Farsi (Persian)
• German
• Hmong
• Korean
• Punjabi
• Russian
• Spanish

The SPD supports Increasing the incentive for certified-bilingual employees, but contractual modifications would be necessary to implement.

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
City of Sacramento Human Resources
https://www.cityofsacramento.org/HR

City of Sacramento Labor Groups
https://www.cityofsacramento.org/HR/Divisions/Labor-Relations/Labor-Agreements

APPENDIX

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 53

SCPRC EVALUATION (NOVEMBER 2023)
Partially Implemented. The Commission appreciates SPD's efforts to incentivize recruitment of bilingual speakers into its ranks. Increasing access to officers that speak Tagalog and Vietnamese would help develop relationships with these communities.

City Council should work with SPD to determine what additional resources are needed to increase the bilingual officers, representing the top five languages spoken in Sacramento.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/ REQUESTS
1) Vietnamese and Tagalog are considered among the top 5 languages prevalent in Sacramento City. Why are these languages not incentivized by SPD?

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 54

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 55

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2018 Diversity #17

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 09/10/2018

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2018

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT X
RETURNED TO SCPRC 05/31/2023

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
Increase diversity in the Department.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): In circumstances where there is a need to reduce the workforce (i.e., layoffs), look at ways to make those reductions other than just seniority.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Considering a variety of factors, instead of just seniority might lead help keep a more diverse and qualified force.

SPD RESPONSE
Based on the City of Sacramento’s Civil Service Board Rules and Regulations, the Sacramento Police Department cannot implement.

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
City of Sacramento Civil Service Board
https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Clerk/Legislative-Bodies/Boards-and-Commissions/CivilServiceBoard

Rules and Regulations
https://www.cityofsacramento.org/-
/media/Corporate/Files/HR/Divisions/Admin/CivilServiceBoardRules62012.pdf?la=en

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (NOVEMBER 2023)
Not Implemented. The Commission agrees that this is a recommendation for the City Council to consider. As such, we recommend that City Council direct the Civil Service Board and any other appropriate entity to amend the Civil Service Rules and Regulations to allow for city departments to consider other factors, other than just seniority, if layoffs or furloughs are necessitated. We hope SPD will support such changes.

However, the Commission still believes there are options for SPD to consider other factors in possible workforce reductions without compromising the diversity within its ranks or violating civil service rules.

This could include planning layoffs that begin among divisions where the fewest number of women and people of color are assigned.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/ REQUESTS

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 56

1) How many personnel of color exist among its Reserve Officer and civilian positions, including Community Service Officers? For example, public records from 2022 indicated two former Deputy Chiefs were transitioned into Reserve Officer ranks while still maintaining the same level of pa y.

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 57

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2018 Diversity #18

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 09/10/2018

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2018

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 05/31/2023

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
Cultivate guardian policing.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): Provide incentives to officers that live in Sacramento (pay increase, special loan programs, and take-home patrol vehicles).

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
When officers live in the communities they protect and serve, it is easier to have a guardian mentality.

Guardian policing emphasizes social service, valuing community partnerships and establishing positive contacts, which is easier to achieve when an officer lives in the community.

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
N/A

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (NOVEMBER 2023)
Started Implementation. The Commission considers the most recent labor agreement, which included a one-time payment of $10,000 to officers who live within the city limits, to be a modest step towards implementation. However, it is important to monitor the outcome of this incentive. Providing $10,000 as a one-time payment may not be strong enough for police officers whose average annual salary exceeds $165,000 (or $13,750 per month) in addition to generous benefits.

The current labor contract is lapsed on March 24, 2023, we hope that the City and the Sacramento Peace Officers Association (SPOA) and agree to sustained residency incentives.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/ REQUESTS
1) Has SPOA requested a sustained residency incentive that is added to personnel’s annual salary? SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 58

2) Has the City offered an equal or greater incentive to encourage officers to reside in the community they serve?

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 59

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2018 Diversity #19

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 09/10/2018

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2018

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 05/31/2023

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
Bias-free training

Changes to Existing Policy(s): Require additional annual current bias-free training to all officers.

RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Social psychological research has facilitated the understanding of bias and prejudice, thereby helping law enforcement leaders design interventions to produce bias-free policing.

Social psychologists originally thought there was just one form of prejudice; now labeled "explicit bias." With explicit bias, individuals link groups (e.g., groups based on gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation) to negative stereotypes. Those stereotypes impact the person's perceptions and behavior, producing discriminatory behavior that is deliberate. Racism is an example of explicit bias. Social psychologists later discovered "implicit bias" as a second way that bias might manifest. Through implicit bias, individuals link groups to stereotypes, but it is not necessarily expressed in outward hostility toward those groups. As with explicit bias, stereotypes can impact perceptions and behavior, producing discriminatory behavior. A key difference, however, is that individuals are not consciously aware of implicit biases. Implicit biases can manifest in people who, at the conscious level, reject biases, stereotypes, and prejudice. The discovery of implicit bias showed that even well-intentioned people have biases that impact their perceptions and behavior. Modern training on this topic is geared toward implicit bias awareness and is a key component of an agency's efforts to produce fair and bias-free policing.

SPD RESPONSE
The department began presenting the Racial Profiling Update in 2014. Since then, per POST, we have presented the course every five years.

In 2016, SPD presented procedural justice and fair and impartial policing during annual Continued Professional Training (CPT).

In 2020, SPD sent approximately 30 sworn personnel to the American Leadership Forum. https://www.alf-mvc.org/

In 2022, strategic communications were instructed during CPT.

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 60

SPD’s procedural justice course is POST certified and is currently being recertified for presentation during the racial profiling update for CPT 2024.

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
N/A

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (NOVEMBER 2023)
Not Implemented. While the SPD lists several important trainings that appear from their Racial Profiling Update, none of the trainings listed by the Department indicate that these are required for all officers or that they occur on an annual basis. The Continued Professional Training has not featured courses focused on implicit bias or bias-free policing since 2021.

This recommendation asked for that the Department conduct bias-free training courses on an annual basis.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/ REQUESTS
N/A

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 61

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 62

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2018 Diversity #20

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 09/10/2018

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2018

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 05/31/2023

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
Increase diversity in the department.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): Training officers must be diverse.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
N/A

SPD RESPONSE
Field Training Officers (FTO) are required to successfully complete a departmental interview process and complete the 40-hour POST Field Training Officer Course. https://post.ca.gov/commission-procedure-d-13-field-training

SPD’s Field Training Program Manual (RM 260.12) mandates FTOs comply with City of Sacramento Equal Opportunity Policy.
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/HR/Divisions/EEO

GO 220.04 Equal Employment Opportunity defines discrimination and harassment.

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
City of Sacramento Human Resources, Equal Employment Opportunity:
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/HR/Divisions/EEO

Equal Opportunity Policy:
https://records.cityofsacramento.org/ViewDoc.aspx?ID=s6tFBnt4W+J8S+tCa433222UxtIRws2O

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (NOVEMBER 2023)
Started Implementation. The Commission is waiting to see how the Department measures diversity among its training officers and how many training officers are currently employed among its personnel.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/ REQUESTS
N/A

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 63

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 64

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2018 Diversity #21

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 09/10/2018

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2018

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 05/31/2023

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION X DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
Increase diversity in the department.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): Include "Diversity Hiring" and retention as part of the Chief's job description and annual performance review.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
With regard to personnel recruitment, law enforcement leaders have long recognized the value of, and geared their efforts toward, soliciting applications from individuals who reflect the diversity of their communities. When officers identifying with minority groups are deployed to neighborhoods reflecting their identity, they may feel more connected to the citizens they are policing, which could increase empathy and strengthen positive police-community engagement. This recommendation seeks to prioritize diversity for the Department.

SPD RESPONSE
The Outreach and Engagement Division works diligently to recruit a diverse people to all positions across the department and particularly as officers and CSOs.

A change to the job description of the chief of police would require input from other city departments and offices.

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
City of Sacramento City Manager’s Office:
https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/city-manager

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (NOVEMBER 2023)
Partially Implemented. Increasing diversity throughout SPD has been a priority for the Commission and we welcome an opportunity to work with PD to research innovative ways or practices that have been working in other departments in other cities or states.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/ REQUESTS
N/A

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 65

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 66

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2018 Diversity #22

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 09/10/2018

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2018

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT X
RETURNED TO SCPRC 05/31/2023

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
Increase diversity in the department.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): Require the City Auditor to review the diversity of SPD all applicants, successful and non-successful applicants, and determine where and why they aren't successful in the process. Respond to these items through the planning process.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Collecting information as to why candidates drop out or do not show up for test will help identify the problem and can inform policies to address the deficiency.

SPD RESPONSE
With the assistance of the City Auditor's Office and City Human Resources, the Sacramento Police Department is willing to implement.

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
N/A

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (NOVEMBER 2023)
Not Implemented. City Council should direct SPD to work with the Auditor’s office to implement this recommendation.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/ REQUESTS
1) What are the barriers preventing SPD from implementing this recommendation? 2) What work is currently being done with the City Auditor? 3) Has the City Auditor proposed specific changes that the department is willing to make? 4) How can the SPCRC help?

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 67

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2018 Diversity #23

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 09/10/2018

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2018

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 05/31/2023

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION X DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
Increase diversity in the department.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): Conduct annual surveys of police personnel that include questions about diversity and inclusion, and highlight the experience of police of color, women, and issues faced during the application and selection examination process, including retention concerns. Address issues raised through the planning process.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
The City Auditor Report on Diversity issued in January 2018, found that "74 percent of sworn police personnel are White, compared to 34 percent of the City population." Researchers have found that greater diversity in police departments and local government boosts trust in those institutions in nonwhite neighborhoods.

SPD RESPONSE
City Council staff report by Deputy Chief Lester on 06/01/2021:
https://sacramento.granicus.com/player/clip/4964?meta_id=631991

The Sacramento Police Department (SPD) partnered with the University of San Diego to complete a community and officer survey.
• https://www.cityofsacramento.org/-/media/Corporate/Files/Police/Transparency/Innovation- Transformation-and-Best-Practices/Surveys/Sacramento-Community-Survey-2019- Final.pdf?la=en
• https://www.cityofsacramento.org/-/media/Corporate/Files/Police/Transparency/Innovation- Transformation-and-Best-Practices/Surveys/SPD-Officer-Survey-2019-Final.pdf?la=en

SPD concurs with this recommendation and could consider expansion of existing surveys in partnership with other city departments to implement.

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
City Auditor Dashboard
https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Auditor/Dashboards

City Auditor’s 2022 Diversity and Workplace Climate Survey. https://www.cityofsacramento.org/-/media/Corporate/Files/Auditor/IBA-Reports/2022-Diversity-and- Workplace-Climate-Survey-Results-FINAL.pdf?la=en

APPENDIX
N/A

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 68

SCPRC EVALUATION (NOVEMBER 2023)
Started Implementation. SPD appears to have started implementing this recommendation but has yet to commit to conducting annual surveys proactively or consistently. As it has been 4 years since its last survey was completed, the Commission recommends the City Council require SPD to conduct an annual survey of police personnel with assistance from the City Auditor and Human Resources Department.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/ REQUESTS
1) Request for SPD to share a copy of data and responses collected from its 2019 Community and Officer Survey.
2) What did SPD learn from the surveys?

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 69

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2018 Diversity #24

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 09/10/2018

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2018

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 05/31/2023

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
Collect more data from candidates that do not complete the process.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): Survey candidates that do not show up for tests or that drop out of the process to find out why and see if there are things SPD can do to decrease these drops.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Collecting information as to why candidates drop out or do not show up for test will help identify the problem and can inform policies to address the deficiency.

SPD RESPONSE
In 2014, SPD received over 8,500 applicants in response to posted job openings and announcements. In 2022, SPD only received 850 applicants for the same postings.

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
N/A

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (NOVEMBER 2023)
Fully Implemented. It seems that SPD has implemented this recommendation. However, to help the SCPRC fulfill its duties under City Code Section 2.110.030, which states “the commission shall advise and make recommendations to the city council regarding police policy, procedures, and best practices, including those related to community relations, hiring, and training best practices” SPD should share the survey findings.

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 70

SCPRC QUESTIONS/ REQUESTS
1) The Commission requests all survey data and interview responses SPD collected from nonresponsive applicants (excluding all personally identifiable information). 2) Has SPD continued to conduct surveys and interviews of nonresponsive applicants on a periodic basis?

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 71

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2018 Diversity #25

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 09/10/2018

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2018

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 05/31/2023

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
Incorporate community input to designing public relations that can help change the perception on SPD.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): Create a committee to help SPD create new public relations tools, such as recruitment videos or pod casts, and opportunities for community dialogue that acknowledge historical racism including but not limited to police actions and policy; and the desire to change the culture of the police force.
• Include community input in the creation of these tools. Community input must include input from communities of color, marginalized communities, and the commission.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
As the media covers incidents of racial bias by police, harsh treatment of black and Latino civilians by police and police shootings many people of color are not enthusiastic of joining the profession.

However, having diverse perspective and experiences in the police force can only help bring positive change the culture in the department.

SPD RESPONSE
The Office of Violence Prevention (OVP) is comprised of non-law enforcement, community member coalition of community-based organizations. OVP has been incorporated into the Sacramento Police Department’s (SPD) management and is regularly relied on for its key initiatives:
• Gang Prevention and Intervention Taskforce and Grant Program • Peacemaker Fellowship Program
• Violence Reduction Summit
https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Community-Response/Office-of-Violence-Prevention

The Sacramento Police Department (SPD) has partnered with the California State University, Sacramento, Institute of Social Research (ISR) to study several social aspects of the Sacramento region. https://www.csus.edu/center/institute-social-research/

SPD and ISR are working to better understand violent crime. In October 2022, ISR completed listening sessions in three focus areas that account for nearly half of reported violent crime. Additionally, ISR completed additional listening sessions of people between the ages of 14 and 18 years old. The goal of the sessions was to receive:
• Feedback of SPD strategy
• Recommendations

The ISR organized dispersing 19,000 leaflets within the focus areas to survey residents about:
• Police practices
• Strategies
SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 72

• Theories

Once the research has been completed, a comprehensive report will be published publicly later in 2023.

The SPD will utilize the ISR research and continued partnership with OVP to guide all facets of operation.

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
N/A

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (NOVEMBER 2023)
Partially Implemented. It seems that SPD has begun engaging specific community members to inform policy, but the recommendation is about creating a public relations campaign and additional opportunities for public dialogue. At the Military Equipment Use community forums the public’s desire to engage directly with SPD was further highlighted.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/ REQUESTS
1) What are the on-going efforts being undertaken by SPD to foster community engagement?

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 73

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 74

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2018 UOF #1

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 09/10/2018

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2018

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 05/31/2023

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
GO 580.02 Use of Force
GO 580.12 Less Lethal Weapons System
GO 580.10 Use of the Conducted Energy Device
GO 522.02 Use of Force
RM 532.02 Search & Handcuff Manual
RM 532.11 First Amendment Assembly Manual
RM 580.08 Baton Manual

SPD's use of force policy is too broad and ambiguous and does not commit police officers to resolve confrontations with the utmost regard for the preservation of life.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): Revise SPD policy on use of force to allow the use of deadly force (including firearms) only as a last resort and when reasonable alternatives have been exhausted or are not feasible to protect public and officer safety.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
There have been multiple UOF incidents involving SPD that have raised significant concerns about how SPD officers prioritize their own safety compared with the members of the public. SPD has killed 6 people in UOF incidents in the last 5 years, several of which led to widespread protests in Sacramento and across the country. These include, but not limited to:
a) Dazion Flenaugh, who was shot in the Parkway Neighborhood by SPD on 04/08/2016 after SPD responded to a mental health crisis call that led to a subsequent chase. His case was one of two that prompted the city to review how police handle encounters with mentally ill suspects and suspects wielding knives.
b) Joseph Mann, who was shot on Del Paso Blvd on 07/11/2016 after SPD responded to reports of a man behaving erratically while holding a knife near an apartment complex. Officers first tried to hit Mann with their car before they left the car and fired 18 shots, 14 of which struck him. His family later said he was mentally ill and sued the city over the incident, with his case become a flashpoint for police reform protests at the time.
c) Stephon Clark, who was shot in his grandmother's backyard in the Meadowview neighborhood on 03/18/2018 after SPD responded to calls of a suspicious person breaking car windows. He was shot 8 times in less than 10 seconds, 6 of which struck him in the back, after officers confused his cellphone for a weapon. His case led to widespread protests for police accountability in Sacramento, resulting in changes to SPD's foot pursuit policy and the statewide adoption of AB 392 changing the UOF policy.

SPD RESPONSE
City Council staff report by Deputy Chief Lester on 06/01/2021:
https://sacramento.granicus.com/player/clip/4964?meta_id=631991 SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 75

SPD policy now includes the following:
• Imminent threat
• Last resort
• AB 392 verbiage
• 835a PC verbatim

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
N/A

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (NOVEMBER 2023)
Fully Implemented. The Commission agrees that this recommendation is implemented, but as issues in our society continue to change and progress, SPD in collaboration with the Commission must remain vigilant to ensure that the UOF policy is current and reflective of the communities’ needs.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/ REQUESTS
N/A

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 76

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 77

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2018 UOF #2

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 09/10/2018

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2018

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 05/31/2023

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
GO 580.02 Use of Force

SPD does not provide enough data from its UOF incidents to meaningfully measure the impacts of the Department's policies, practices, or procedures.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): Require quarterly public posting on statistics related to use of force including, at a minimum:
• Type of force
• Types and degree of injury to suspect and officer
• Date and time
• Location of incident
• Officer's unit
• District station where the use of force occurred
• Number of officers using force in the incident
• Officer's activity when force was used
• Subject's activity requiring the officer to use force • Officer's demographics (age, gender, race/ethnicity, rank, number of years with SPD, number of years as a police officer)
• Suspect demographics (race/ethnicity, age, gender, gender identity, primary language, and other factors such as mental illness, cognitive impairment, developmental disability, drug and alcohol use/addiction, and homelessness)

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
None provided.

SPD RESPONSE
City Council staff report by Deputy Chief Lester on 06/01/2021:
https://sacramento.granicus.com/player/clip/4964?meta_id=631991

In accordance with the Racial and Identity Profiling Act, much of the recommended data is submitted to the DOJ for publishing on Open Justice data portal.
https://openjustice.doj.ca.gov/data

SPD has published use of force data and analysis.
https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Police/Transparency/Use-Of-Force-Information-and-Statistics

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
N/A
SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 78

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (NOVEMBER 2023)
Partially Implemented. Additional data is required to be collected and this data must be made publicly available while protecting an individual’s privacy for this recommendation to be considered fully implemented.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/ REQUESTS
N/A

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 79

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2019 BWC #1

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 12/10/2019

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2019

APPROVED AND PENDING X SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 10/09/2023

P ARTIAL IMPLEMENTA TION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDA TION
GO 525.07 Body Worn Camera

SPD policy is unclear about whether all officers will be issued a Body Worn Camera (BWC).

Amend GO 525.07 (B)(1): Clarify that all SPD officers that work in uniform are required to wear a body worn camera, using the following language:

1. All employees working in a uniform shall be issued a BWC and are required to wear and use their BWCs while working in uniform...

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
The Commission's recommendation is to strengthen the BWC policy to ensure all officers are required to be issued and wear a BWC during their work shift. As currently written, the policy is not clear that all officers shall be issued a BWC; however, this appears to be the intent based on conversations with Sac PD.

SPD RESPONSE
As of 08/09/2023, a revision of In-Car Cameras (SPD GO 525.03) and Body-Worn Camera (525.07) are combined into one general order, “In-Car and Body-Worn Cameras” (525.03).

The draft clearly defines when personnel are required to utilize issued in-car cameras and body-worn cameras. Final policy will include that “all sworn personnel and CSOs shall be issued and trained in the use of in-car and body-worn cameras.”

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
N/A

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (DECEMBER 2023)
Started Implementation. SCPRC will determine whether this recommendation is implemented once the policy language has been finalized and made public.

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 80

The intent of the Commission was for SPD personnel to be required to wear and use their BWCs for all interactions during their work shift. While SPD states it has updated its policies to define when personnel are required to utilize BWCs, the Commission is concerned that this allows opportunities for police officers to turn off their BWCs during their work shift which undermines the spirit of transparency the Sacramento community expects.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/REQUEST
1) Are there exceptions for SPD personnel to not use their BWCs or In-Car Cameras during their work shift? If yes, what are they?

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2019 BWC #2

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 12/10/2019

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2019

APPROVED AND PENDING X SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 10/09/2023

P ARTIAL IMPLEMENTA TION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
GO 525.07 Body Worn Camera

SPD does not have a reporting requirement when an officer goes into the field without a body worn camera.

Amend GO 525.07(D)(4): Add the following language:

4. Only a watch commander or higher can authorize an employee to go in service without a BWC due to an equipment shortage or malfunction. This authorization if granted shall be documented.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
SPD's GO 525.07 states that: "Only a watch commander or higher can authorize an employee to go in service without a BWC due to an equipment shortage or malfunction." According to SPD, this should be a rare occurrence. However, when this does happen creating a reporting requirement would be prudent. Therefore, the Commission recommends creating a reporting requirement for instances when this occurs.

SPD RESPONSE
As of 08/09/2023, a revision of In-Car Cameras (SPD GO 525.03) and Body-Worn Camera (525.07) are combined into one general order, “In-Car and Body-W orn Cameras” (525.03).

The draft states, “Only a watch commander or higher can authorize peace officers or CSOs to go in service or remain in service without a BWC due to an equipment shortage or malfunction. This SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 81

authorization shall be documented in CAD by adding remarks during login or through a miscellaneous comment indicating who approved the authorization.”

Even still, each patrol station is equipped with replacement BWC devices for issuance if cameras are malfunctioning, damaged, lost, or unavailable. The draft policy requires employees to notify a supervisor, receive a replacement, and notify the Sustainment Team (responsible for BWC training, issuance, and tracking).

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
N/A

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (DECEMBER 2023)
Started Implementation. SCPRC will determine whether this recommendation is fully implemented once the General Order has been finalized and made public.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/REQUEST
N/A

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2019 BWC #3

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 12/10/2019 APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2019 APPROVED AND PENDING X SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT RETURNED TO SCPRC 10/09/2023 P ARTIAL IMPLEMENTA TION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
GO 525.07 Body Worn Camera

SPD policy uses terms or language such as "private citizens" that is exclusionary for certain members of the public.

Amend GO 525.07(E)(5): Replace the term "private citizens" or "citizens" with "members of the public" and add the following language under (E)(5):

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 82

5. Employees are not required to give notice they are recording when speaking with private citizens members of the public during the course and scope of their official duties, even when the contact occurs in a private residence. If asked, employees shall advise citizens members of the public they are being recorded. Moreover, employees should strongly consider advising citizens members of the public that they are being recorded as a tool to de-escalate a situation, maintain transparency, and build trust.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Changing the words from "private citizens" to "members of the public" is more … Additionally, while the body worn camera program can be a tool to de-escalate a situation, it is also a tool to maintain transparency and to build community trust.

SPD RESPONSE
As of 08/09/2023, a revision of In-Car Cameras (SPD GO 525.03) and Body-Wor n Camera (525.07) are combined into one general order, “In-Car and Body-Worn Cameras” (525.03).

References to any “citizen” have been removed and replaced with “members of the public.” It should be noted that all policies under revision have also removed “citizen” and replaced with “members of the public.”

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
N/A

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (DECEMBER 2023)
Started Implementation. SCPRC will determine whether this recommendation is implemented once the General Order has been finalized and made public.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/REQUEST
N/A

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2019 BWC #4

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 12/10/2019

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW X
SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 83

RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2019

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 10/09/2023

P ARTIAL IMPLEMENTA TION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDA TION
GO 525.07 Body Worn Camera

If an officer responds to a dispatch call, SPD policy does not specify that the officer is required to have the body worn camera recording before an interaction with a member of the public.

Amend GO 525.07(E)(3): Add the following language:

3. Employees shall activate their BWC during investigations and enforcement activity, including evidence collection, whether self-initiated or in response to a dispatch call. When responding to a dispatch call, the officer shall turn the BWC before approaching the location for the call for services.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
The language clarifies that the officer must have the body worn camera recording before interaction with a member of the public as a result of a dispatch call.

SPD RESPONSE
As of 08/09/2023, a revision of In-Car Cameras (GO 525.03) and Body-Worn Camera (GO 525.07) are combined into one general order, “In-Car and Body-Worn Cameras” (GO 525.03).

The current draft dictates that “when feasible,” employees shall activate their devices when arriving on scene, engaging in self-initiated enforcement activity, and initiating investigative activity. Further, if immediate activation is not feasible due to risk or safety of any person, the device shall be activated as soon as it is safe.

SPD cannot mandate activation of in-car and body-worn cameras before interaction with a member of the public or prior to arriving at a call for service due to contractual issues subject to labor group negotiations.

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
N/A

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (DECEMBER 2023)
Not Implemented. City Council should direct SPD to discuss this recommendation in labor negotiations and make changes to reach full implementation.

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 84

SCPRC QUESTIONS/REQUEST
1) Why does the labor contract preclude mandatory activation of in-car and body-worn cameras? SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 85

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2019 Mental Health #1

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 12/10/2019

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2019

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 10/09/2023

P ARTIAL IMPLEMENTA TION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDA TION
GO 522.01 Handling Mentally Ill Persons

SPD policy is outdated.

Amend GO 522.01: Update the policy to include language acknowledging mental health and self- medication are closely tied and providing guidance to officers on how to deal with members of the public who have co-occurring disorders.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Last time GO 522.01 was updated was August 2015. As research has shown that mental health and self- medication are closely tied, the Commission recommends updating the GO to include guidance to officers on how to deal with co-occurring disorders.

SPD RESPONSE
As of 09/05/2023, GO 522.01 Handling Mentally Ill Persons is under revision and does not expressly address co-morbidity, but stresses recognizing signs and symptoms of mental health issues and crisis.

POLICY
It shall be the policy of the Sacramento Police Department that officers handling mentally ill persons proceed in a manner consistent with the safety and well-being of all persons involved.

Officers are increasingly required to respond to and intervene on behalf of persons who are in mental health crisis. While officers are not expected to make mental health diagnoses, they are expected to recognize signs and symptoms that may suggest a mental illness, as well as behaviors that are indicative of mental health crisis. The goal is to use de-escalation techniques to maximize the likelihood of a safe outcome for officers, individuals, and the community.

Instead, GO 522.02 (Emergency Care for Individuals Under Police Care or Control, revised 08/09/2023) mandates that officers be aware of behaviors indicative of medical distress to include (A., 3.):
● Bizarre/aggressive behavior.
● Dilated pupils.
● Fear/panic/paranoia.
● High temperature.
● Irrational/incoherent speech.
● Jumping into water.
● Profuse sweating.

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 86

● Public disrobing.
● Self-inflicted injuries.
● Shivering.
● Inconsistent breathing patterns.
● Seizure.
● Unexpected physical strength.
● Sudden tranquility.

Further, GO 522.02 recommends placing subjects in comfortable positions and attempt to keep the subject calm until emergency medical services arrive. Additionally, the policy refers to the deployment of intra-nasal naloxone (Narcan) as directed by GO 522.06 (Administration of Narcan).

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
N/A

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (DECEMBER 2023)
Not Implemented. The current language and failure to address co-morbidity shared in this response falls short, however this is not an issue that SPD can address alone. There is a broader national discussion that is looking at the science of addiction and mental illness that raises deep cultural questions about how we respond as a society: do we punish people for substance abuse, or do we treat substance abuse as an illness worthy of treatment?
Based on this response and the language in SPD’s policy, the Department’s status quo culture still considers addiction and substance abuse as a conscious choice and prioritizes punishment and incarceration as a means for changing behavior. However, there has been a significant shift in the understanding of substance abuse to where distinguished medical associations including the National Institute of Mental Health now classify substance abuse as a serious mental illness with a wide range of overlapping causal factors including social determinants (unemployment, homelessness, childhood trauma), psychological determinants (accompanying mental health disorders), and biological determinants (family history of substance abuse, substance abuse during pregnancy, persistent secondhand exposure).

Given the longstanding demands for community-based alternatives to mental health crisis response, there is significant urgency for the City and the Department to seriously reconsider the status quo culture of policing substance abuse and how it impacts the community as a whole. The Commission notes that there are already consistent measurable data presented by subject matter experts both inside and outside the Sacramento County government showing the current impacts:
● In Sacramento County, the Sacramento Police Department is the leading law enforcement agency for jail bookings in Sacramento County.
● Sacramento County’s jail admission rates are higher than almost all other counties in the state that have populations between 1.1 and 3.3 million, with at least 70% of the County’s jail SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 87

population being diagnosed with a mental health condition, over 75% of whom have only been accused of a crime and not yet been to trial.
● According to data from the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office, people with a mental health diagnosis who receive mental health services during incarceration comprise 63% (2,147) of the jail population , 27% of whom have a Serious Mental Illness (SMI), which includes a diagnosis of a Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorders, Borderline Personality Disorder, Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder, and/or Bipolar and Related Disorders. This makes the Sacramento County jail system one of the largest behavioral health providers in the county – a service it is not designed to provide.
● The mental health population enters the Sacramento County Jail more often for warrants as well as holds and violations as compared to the larger jail population. In 2021, 33% of jail bookings involved people with SMI, 25% of whom were also screened as homeless. This means that there are a significant portion of people entering the county jail system with complex needs in the community involving housing and mental health services. ● Almost 70% of the jail on a given day is made up of people who have been booked two or more times. nearly 32% of the people booked into County jail for a new crime are arrested for drug- or alcohol-related crimes, and 30% of jail bookings are related to statutory violations of drug or alcohol laws, indicating substance use needs. On any given day, 45% of the jail population has some combination of substance use disorder and/or a SMI.

Ultimately, this is a question that the City Council must discuss publicly and provide clear direction and guidance for how SPD should deal with a person dealing with substance abuse.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/REQUEST
N/A

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 88

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FOR
2019 Mental Health #2

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 12/10/2019

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2019

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 10/09/2023

P ARTIAL IMPLEMENTA TION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDA TION
The Crisis Intervention Team training is typically 40 hours. After the initial training is done, it is unclear how often the Crisis Intervention Team members are required to retake the training.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): Require yearly certification for Crisis Intervention Team members.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
In 2015, the Sacramento Police Department implemented a training requirement that all police officers and first-line supervisors attend an eight-hour crisis intervention awareness class. This class provides officers with a basic introduction and general awareness of mental health issues. However, even with the SPD basic training requirement, officers that respond to these calls would benefit from additional specialized training or knowledge to deal with the mentally ill, emotionally disturbed persons, and their families.

SPD RESPONSE
Since 2016, all sworn officers have been required to successfully complete a three-hour CIT course (13515.27(a) PC). All CIT course instructors have successfully completed a POST-mandated training program (13515.28 PC).

In December 2020, GO 580.06 (De-Escalation and Planned Response) was created and provides guidelines for interacting with those individuals who may be experiencing emotional or mental health crises.

During the department’s 2021 mandated annual Continued Professional Training (CPT), officers completed CIT, TacCom, Implicit Bias, De-Escalation, and Peer Intervention training.

As of February 2023, the Mental Health Unit instructs the department’s POST-certified, 40-hour, Crisis Intervention Techniques (CIT) course, twice a year, which is POST-certified. Since 2016, all SPD sworn employees and newly hired officers have been mandated to successfully complete the 40-hour CIT course.

During the department’s 2023 mandated CPT, officers completed Strategic Communications which was incorporated into scenario-based training.

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 89

N/A

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (DECEMBER 2023)
Partially Implemented. The SCPRC recognizes that many of the 2019 Mental Health Recommendations were made at a time before the creation of the Department of Community Response (DCR). Given the changes the City Council has made, it would be prudent to revisit whether the collaboration between SPD and DCR is meeting the expectations set when the DCR was first created.

The deficiencies that lead to the creation of DCR are best articulated in July 1, 2020 agenda memo titled “911 Alternative Response Model – Office of Community Response” which states:
“The City’s traditional emergency services--including police, fire, and EMT services--are not equipped to resolve the types of crises that are discussed in this memo. The inability of traditional emergency services to resolve crisis situations, particularly in cases of mental health crisis and intimate partner violence, has created a revolving door between the streets, the jails, and the emergency rooms in cities across the country. As it stands now, police are only equipped with temporary and generally ineffective measures to respond to crisis situations.

The City of Sacramento currently dispatches only traditional emergency services including Police, Fire, and Emergency Medical Services to 911 calls. However, these responders often are not adequately equipped, authorized or trained to resolve certain emergencies or crisis situations such as behavioral health, addiction, and homelessness. Additionally, these traditional first responders do not have ready access to treatment options beyond jails and emergency rooms.

The result is a cycle of futility as complex behavioral issues move through our streets, jails, and emergency rooms without resolution. Additionally, the capacity of our police, firefighters and EMS to respond to urgent 911 calls that they can resolve is effectively diminished.”

SCPRC QUESTIONS/REQUEST
N/A
SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 90

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2019 Mental Health #3

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 12/10/2019

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2019

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 10/09/2023

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDA TION
There is no specific number for calls for service related to a mental health crisis.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): Additional training for Dispatchers or separate number for calls-ins related to mental health calls.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Create a separate number for call-ins related to mental health crisis or provide additional training for Dispatchers to separate calls related to mental health crisis.

SPD RESPONSE
SPD tracks the number of mental health related calls for service and publishes those statistics as party of the Monthly Chief’s Report, available at
https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Police/Crime/Crime-
Statistics.

The total number of mental health related calls for service are:
● 2019: 12,469
● 2020: 13,374
● 2021: 13,589
● 2022: 12,126

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
N/A

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (DECEMBER 2023)
Pending Further Review (Not Implemented). The SCPRC recognizes that many of the 2019 Mental Health Recommendations were made at a time before the creation of the Department of Community Response (DCR). Given the changes the City Council has made, it would be prudent to revisit whether the collaboration between SPD and DCR is meeting the expectations set when the DCR was first created.

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 91

SCPRC QUESTIONS/REQUEST
N/A
SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 92

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2019 Mental Health #4

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 12/10/2019

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2019

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 10/09/2023

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDA TION
The Crisis Intervention Team should be more fully integrated into SPD operations.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): All general orders should be reviewed and, where appropriate, involvement by the Crisis Intervention Team should be included. Incorporating the Crisis Intervention Team into the Use of Force general order might provide a tool for de-escalating situations.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
In recent years, the number of police-related calls for service involving persons with mental illness has increased. Integrating the Crisis Intervention Team into more operations of the SPD might help de- escalate situations.

SPD RESPONSE
SPD does not have a “Crisis Intervention Team,” but since 2019, SPD has assigned officers to the Mental Health Unit, which currently consists of two officers attached to the IMPACT team. During their shifts, they routinely respond to calls for service across the city, follow-up on referrals, and participate in ongoing department training.

In December 2020, the department published GO 580.06 (De-Escalation and Planned Response) with the following purpose (link
):

The purpose of this order is to provide guidelines for interacting with those individuals who may be experiencing emotion or mental health crises.

As of October 2023, a revision of the department’s use of force policy (GO 580.02) contains the following mental health references and considerations:
● Verbatim citation of Penal Code § 835a
● Definitions: CIT and de-escalation
● Consideration governing the use of force
● Training

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
N/A

APPENDIX
SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 93

N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (DECEMBER 2023)
Pending Further Review (Started Implementation). The SCPRC recognizes that many of the 2019 Mental Health Recommendations were made at a time before the creation of the Department of Community Response (DCR). Given the changes the City Council has made, it would be prudent to revisit whether the collaboration between SPD and DCR is meeting the expectations set when the DCR was first created.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/REQUEST
N/A
SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 94

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2019 Mental Health #5

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 12/10/2019

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2019

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 10/09/2023

P ARTIAL IMPLEMENTA TION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDA TION
Additional outreach to mental health providers is needed.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): Improve outreach to mental health providers on how to partner with the Police Department and collaborate on the Crisis Intervention Team.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Deinstitutionalization coupled with inadequate and strained community resources have resulted in many people with mental illness not having access to care. They often experience police encounters that can turn deadly. Injuries and death to both people with mental illness and officers underscore the need for mental health professionals and the police to establish effective and sustained partnerships to ensure the care and safety for this population.

SPD RESPONSE
SPD does not have a “Crisis Intervention Team,” but since 2019, SPD has assigned officers to the Mental Health Unit (MHU), which currently consists of two officers attached to the IMPACT team. During their shifts, they routinely respond to calls for service across the city, follow-up on referrals, and participate in ongoing department training.

Coordination and outreach to mental health providers is the responsibility of the County of Sacramento.

Even still, the MHU have partnered with several mental health providers and services across the city to include, but not limited to:
● Department of Community Response
● HOPE Cooperative Mental Health Crisis Respite Care
● National Alliance of Mental Illness (NAMI)
● Sacramento Mental Health Urgent Care Clinic (MHUCC)
● State Council on Developmental Disabilities
● Turning Point Community Programs
● WellSpace Health

MHU also facilitates the POST-certified, 40-hour, Crisis Intervention Training for all new officers and incorporates teaching alongside aforementioned mental health providers.

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 95

N/A

APPENDIX
N/A

While the Commission finds the cited list of partners promising, the absence of Sacramento County’s Community Wellness Response Teams which is intended to provide the police-free mental health crisis response long demanded by City residents.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/REQUEST

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 96

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2019 Mental Health #6

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 12/10/2019

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2019

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 10/09/2023

P ARTIAL IMPLEMENTA TION X DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDA TION
The Crisis Intervention Team does not need to wear the traditional police officer uniform with weapon visibility.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): Require the use of khakis and polos for Crisis Intervention Team members when engaging with a person dealing with a mental health crisis.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
People experiencing a mental health crisis might have a negative reaction toward police officers due to a bad experience in the past. Having Crisis Intervention Team members wear non-traditional police uniforms would help ease the trauma of negative experiences thus decreasing the potential for conflict.

MHU officers will remain in full police uniforms. Currently, the MHU deploys in unmarked police vehicles and will be transitioning to all-white vehicles.

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
N/A

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (DECEMBER 2023)
Not Implemented. Considering there have been consistent calls by community members to end of the use of unmarked police vehicles in Sacramento, the SCPRC considers the use of unmarked police vehicles for mental health crisis calls to be more detrimental to SPD’s goal of fostering trust between its officers and community members. Furthermore, armed personnel in full police uniform can escalate already tense situations that can result in inappropriate uses of force, especially in situations involving mental health crisis.

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 97

We have seen this occur too many times in Sacramento, with at least 7 officer-involved shootings involving people experiencing mental health crises were killed over the last 7 years. Despite the Department investing in crisis intervention training for every officer and developing a mobile crisis response unit, the California Attorney General found that altered mental health was a factor in over 60% of the use of force cases they reviewed, and, most alarmingly, that over half of use of force cases reviewed displayed "issues with the tactical choices that SPD officers made... most commonly failure to use or fully utilize de-escalation." Nationwide, people experiencing the signs and symptoms of a mental health crisis are 16 times as likely to be killed by law enforcement as their peers, with Black men in mental health crises being more likely to be killed by law enforcement than any other demographic.

It is clear from years of data-driven analysis that dispatching law enforcement to respond to every mental health crisis endangers our community. The current response from the Department only serves to reinforce a status quo that creating to greater harm than good for community members.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/REQUEST
N/A

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 98

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2019 Mental Health #7

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 12/10/2019

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2019

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT X
RETURNED TO SCPRC 10/09/2023

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDA TION
Additional Crisis Intervention Teams are needed to service the need in the City.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): Increase the number of Crisis Intervention Teams and other social worker related community non-profits.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
N/A

Current staffing shortages have not made it feasible to assign additional officers to the MHU.

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
N/A

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (DECEMBER 2023)
Pending Further Review (Not Implemented). The SCPRC recognizes that many of the 2019 Mental Health Recommendations were made at a time before the creation of the Department of Community Response (DCR). Given the changes the City Council has made and based on the Department’s response about staffing shortages, it would be prudent to revisit whether the collaboration between SPD and DCR is meeting the expectations set when the DCR was first created.

traditional emergency services to resolve crisis situations, particularly in cases of mental health crisis and intimate partner violence, has created a revolving door between the streets, the jails, and the emergency rooms in cities across the country. As it stands now, police are only equipped with temporary and generally ineffective measures to respond to crisis situations.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/REQUEST
N/A

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 100

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2019 Mental Health #8

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 12/10/2019

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2019

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT X
RETURNED TO SCPRC 10/09/2023

P ARTIAL IMPLEMENTA TION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDA TION
Additional data should be collected.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): Data should be collected to provide transparent reporting of how many calls dealt with mental health crisis and the follow-up that happened.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Data collection can help track what investments and programs are being successful or not working and help inform policy changes.

SPD RESPONSE
SPD tracks the number of mental health related calls for service and publishes those statistics as party of the Monthly Chief’s Report, available at https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Police/Crime/Crime- Statistics.

The total number of mental health related calls for service are:
● 2019: 12,469
● 2020: 13,374
● 2021: 13,589
● 2022: 12,126

Because mental health related calls for service conclude in various ways (civil, criminal, medical, and provider referrals), SPD cannot capture or produce private and confidential data (CLETS and HIPAA).

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
N/A

APPENDIX
N/A

Response (DCR). Given the changes the City Council has made, it would be prudent to revisit whether the collaboration between SPD and DCR is meeting the expectations set when the DCR was first created.

It should be noted that subsequent recommendations and requests have been made by SCPRC since 2019 for SPD to provide de-personalized copy of 911 Call and Dispatch Data provided to DCR for the purpose of assessing the Department’s responses to 911 calls for service, including what proportion of 911 calls are related to mental health. As of December 2023, this data has not been provided. The best snapshot available for SPD’s 911 calls for service found that police officers spent at least 50% of their time responding to noncriminal and traffic-related incidents, with only about 4% of their time devoted to handling violent crime (homicide, robbery, rape and aggravated assault).

Source: Asher, Jeff, and Horowitz, Ben. June 19, 2020. “How Do the Police Actually Spend Their Time?” New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/19/upshot/unrest-police-time-violent-crime.html

SCPRC QUESTIONS/REQUEST
N/A

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 102

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2019 Mental Health #9

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 12/10/2019

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2019

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT X
RETURNED TO SCPRC 10/09/2023

P ARTIAL IMPLEMENTA TION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDA TION
The Mental Health Ad Hoc ceases to exist after 2019.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): Continue the Mental Health Ad Hoc for another year to allow it to review any data collected and identify possible gaps that could be addressed. The Ad Hoc could also further engage the community.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
N/A

SPD RESPONSE
N/A

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
N/A

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (DECEMBER 2023)
Fully Implemented.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/REQUEST
N/A

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 103

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 104

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2019 UOF #1

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 12/10/2019

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2019

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 10/09/2023

P ARTIAL IMPLEMENTA TION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDA TION
GO 580.02 Use of Force

SPD's UOF policy is outdated and not aligned with changes to state law.

Amend GO 580.02: Adopt the "necessary" standard for use of force included in AB 392 (Weber-2019) and recommended by the SCPRC including a definition for UOF.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Community trust in law enforcement is undermined when force is used unnecessarily and disproportionately. Police are less able to do their job when community distrust leads to decreased respect and cooperation, a situation that increases the risks to officers and civilians.

SPD RESPONSE
In 2021, SPD’s use of force policy was updated to reflect AB392 and contains a verbatim citation of Penal Code § 835a.

As of October 2023, a revision of the department’s use of force policy contains the following:
● Verbatim citation of Penal Code § 835a
● Included, but not limited to, definitions of crisis intervention techniques, de-escalation, excessive force, force definitions, intercede, and levels of resistance ● Compliance with Government Code § 7286 (link)

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
City Council Meeting on 06/30/2020, City Council Policy, Police Use of Force ● http://sacramento.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=4652 ● https://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer .php?view_id=22&clip_id=4652&meta_id=588408

City Council Meeting on 05/04/2021, Mayor Darrell Steinberg memorandum, Deadly Use of Force Recommendation
● http://sacramento.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=4935

● https://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer .php?view_id=22&clip_id=4935&meta_id=627523

APPENDIX
SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 105

N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (DECEMBER 2023)
Fully Implemented.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/REQUEST
N/A

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 106

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2019 UOF #2

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 12/10/2019

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2019

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 10/09/2023

P ARTIAL IMPLEMENTA TION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDA TION
GO 580.02 Use of Force

SPD's definition of "imminent threat" is outdated and does not align with AB 392.

Amend GO 580.02(A)(1): Change definition of "imminent threat" to align with AB 392 using the following language:

1. IMMINENT THREAT - An imminent threat is considered to exist if a suspect has demonstrated actions that would lead one to reasonably believe that the suspect will continue to pose a threat if not apprehended without delay. An imminent threat is not merely a fear of future threat, no matter how great the fear, but is one that, from the appearances, must be instantly confronted and addressed. A person is an imminent threat if the peace officer reasonably believes that the person has the present intent, means, opportunity and ability to complete the threat regardless of whether the threatened action has been initiated.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
The definition of imminent threat in the General Order should align with the changes in law made by AB 392.

SPD RESPONSE
In 2021, SPD’s use of force policy was updated to reflect AB392 and contains a verbatim citation of Penal Code § 835a.

Further, SPD’s use of force policy defines “imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury” directly from Penal Code § 835a(e)(2) as:

A threat of death or serious bodily injury is “imminent” when, based on the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable officer in the same situation would believe that a person has the present ability, opportunity, and apparent intent to immediately cause death or serious bodily injury to the peace officer or another person. An imminent harm is not merely a fear of future harm, no matter how great the fear and no matter how great the likelihood of the harm, but is one that, from appearances, must be instantly confronted and addressed.

As of October 2023, a revision of the department’s use of force policy retains the verbatim Penal Code § 835a(e)(2) definition of “imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.”

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 107

Additionally, the ongoing revision of the department’s use of force policy contains the following:
● Compliance with Government Code § 7286 (link)

City Council Meeting on 05/04/2021, Mayor Darrell Steinberg memorandum, Deadly Use of Force Recommendation
● http://sacramento.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=4935 ● https://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer .php?view_id=22&clip_id=4935&meta_id=627523

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (DECEMBER 2023)
Fully Implemented.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/REQUEST
N/A

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 108

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2019 UOF #3

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 12/10/2019

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2019

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 10/09/2023

P ARTIAL IMPLEMENTA TION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDA TION
GO 580.02 Use of Force

SPD does not specify whether it considers the consistency of an officer's conduct with applicable policy or training within the totality of circumstances.

Amend GO 580.02(A)(3): Change the definition of "totality of circumstances" to increase accountability and transparency using the following language:

3. TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES – All facts known to the peace officer at the time, including the conduct of the officer and the subject leading up the use of force and whether the officer's conduct was consistent with applicable training and policy.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Understanding whether an officer was following SPD policy is important to ensuring accountability and transparency for members of the public. To that end, it's equally important for an officer to ensure their conduct is consistent with the training and policies they received.

SPD RESPONSE
In 2021, SPD’s use of force policy was updated to reflect AB392 and contains a verbatim citation of Penal Code § 835a.

Further, “totality of circumstances” is defined as:

All facts known to, or perceived by, the peace officer at the time, including the conduct of the officer and the subject leading up to the UOF.

As of October 2023, a revision of the department’s use of force policy retains the verbatim Penal Code § 835a(e)(3) and defines “totality of circumstances” as:
“Totality of the circumstances” means all facts known to the peace officer at the time, including the conduct of the officer and the subject leading up to the use of deadly force.

Additionally, the ongoing revision of the department’s use of force policy contains the following:
● Compliance with Government Code § 7286 (link
)

Finally, GO 580.01 (Use of Force Review Board – link
) outlines the process by which all reportable uses of
force are administratively reviewed with the following policy statement:

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 109

The Sacramento Police Department shall objectively evaluate officer or authorized non-sworn uniformed department personnel use of force incidents to ensure that force is used lawfully, appropriately and is consistent with training and policy.

City Council Meeting on 05/04/2021, Mayor Darrell Steinberg memorandum, Deadly Use of Force Recommendation
● http://sacramento.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=4935

● https://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer .php?view_id=22&clip_id=4935&meta_id=627523

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (DECEMBER 2023)
Partially Implemented. In 2019, SCPRC urged SPD to align language in the UOF General Order to the language adopted in AB 392. SPD seems to have followed this request. However, to better understand whether training is being used adequately, the SCPRC would like to see additional information from the UOF Review Board.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/REQUEST
N/A

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 110

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2019 UOF #4

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 12/10/2019

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2019

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 10/09/2023

P ARTIAL IMPLEMENTA TION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDA TION
GO 580.02 Use of Force

SPD has no duty to render aid and does not require officers to render medical aid immediately after someone is hurt.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): Create a standalone policy establishing a Duty to Render Aid to require officers to render medical aid as soon as possible. Add a new section to GO 580.02 using the following language:

E. MEDICAL CARE

1. Peace officers shall render medical aid to the subject as soon possible.

2. Use of Force Medical Care
a. It is the supervisor's responsibilities to inquire if UOF resulted in injury and if so, to render aid and ensure that emergency medical care is provided as soon as possible. (1) It is an on-scene supervisor's duty to ensure medical aid care is provided if UOF resulted in injury as soon as possible.
(2) The supervisor, in their report, should include their opinion as to whether the UOF and provision of emergency care were consistent with department policy. b. If UOF resulted in injury, the Blue Team entry should include a summary of the emergency care provided.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Ensuring that someone is hurts receives medical attention continues to promote the guardian mentality.

Duty to render aid should be a standalone policy and officers should render medical aid as soon as possible.

SPD RESPONSE
In 2021, SPD’s use of force policy was revised to include:

D. RENDERING MEDICAL AID
Peace officers on scene shall promptly render aid and/or summon medical assistance when reasonable and safe to do so pursuant to GO 522.02 (Emergency Care for Individuals Under Police Care or Control) when any UOF has resulted in any type of injury or death regardless of custody status.

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 111

SPD GO 522.02 (Emergency Care for Individuals Under Police Care or Control – link) was published on 08/09/2023 and contains, but not limited to, the following:

A. EMERGENCY MEDICAL TREATMENT

1. Officers having any doubt concerning a person’s condition shall request emergency medical assistance.

2. Officers shall provide first aid to injured parties if it can be done safely.

As of October 2023, a revision of the department’s use of force policy contains the following:

RENDERING MEDICAL AID
Employees on scene shall promptly render aid and summon medical assistance when reasonable and safe to do so pursuant to General Order 522.02 (Emergency Care) when any UOF has resulted in any type of injury or death regardless of custody status.

Lastly, the ongoing revision of the department’s use of force policy contains the following:
● Compliance with Government Code § 7286 (link
)

City Council Meeting on 05/04/2021, Mayor Darrell Steinberg memorandum, Deadly Use of Force Recommendation
● http://sacramento.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=4935

● https://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer .php?view_id=22&clip_id=4935&meta_id=627523

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (DECEMBER 2023)
Not Implemented. The SCPRC recommended a standalone policy that establishes a Duty to Render Aid for all SPD officers. Even with the cursory updates to its UOF and Emergency Care policies referenced in its response, the Department continues its use of vague or subjective terms such as “reasonable” or “when safe to do so” to allow police officers wide latitude to avoid rendering aid for individuals injured in UOF incidents even in moments when minutes count.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/REQUEST
N/A
SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 112

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2019 UOF #5

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 12/10/2019

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2019

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 10/09/2023

P ARTIAL IMPLEMENTA TION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDA TION
GO 580.02 Use of Force

SPD culture maintains a "warrior" mentality that is not conducive for protecting or serving a civilian population during peacetime.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): Change "police officer" to "peace officer".

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
As a profession, policing has veered from the ideal that "police are the people, and the people are the police," toward a culture and mindset more like warriors at war with the people they are sworn to protect and serve. Changing from "warrior" to a "guardian" mentality in the profession puts emphasis on protecting community members. Law enforcement officers with this mentality emphasize creating and strengthening relationships with the people in their community, rather than relying on force or enforcement tactics.

SPD RESPONSE
SPD has adopted this change and revised GO 580.02 (Use of Force) in 2021.

Additionally, as other general orders are revised, the term “police officer” is replaced with “peace officer” or “employee.”

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
N/A

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (DECEMBER 2023)
Fully Implemented.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/REQUEST
SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 113

N/A

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 114

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2019 UOF #6

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 12/10/2019

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2019

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 10/09/2023

P ARTIAL IMPLEMENTA TION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDA TION
GO 580.02 Use of Force

SPD UOF policy is outdated, uses vague or overly broad terms, and does not align with AB 392.

Amend GO 580.02(A)(5): Change the definition of "de-escalation" to reflect national UOF standards and include examples of de-escalation techniques using the following language:

5. DE-ESCALATI ON - De-escalation means taking action or communicating verbally or nonverbally during a potential force encounter in an attempt to stabilize the situation and reduce the immediacy of the threat so more time, options, and resources can be called upon to resolve the situation without the use of force or with a reduction of the force necessary. De-escalation tactics include, but are not limited to, warnings, verbal persuasion, and tactical repositioning. Employing techniques to stabilize a situation, to decrease the likelihood of the need to use force, and to increase the likelihood of voluntary compliance.

De-escalation techniques include, but are not limited to, gathering information about the incident, assessing risks, using crisis intervention techniques, communicating and coordinating a response, and utilizing available resources (such as personnel, equipment; usage of time, distance, and cover).

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
There is only one specific definition of police de-escalation. This definition is found in the 2017 National Consensus Policy and Discussion Paper on Use of Force (a collaborative effort among 11 law enforcement leadership and labor organizations in the United States). The National Consensus Policy specifically defines police de-escalation as "taking action or communicating verbally or non-verbally during a potential force encounter in an attempt to stabilize the situation and reduce the immediacy of the threat so that more time, options, and resources can be called upon to resolve the situation without the use of force or with a reduction in the force necessary."

SPD's UOF policy does not align with the national consensus policy and does not specify the de- escalation techniques an officer is trained to deploy.

SPD RESPONSE
GO 580.06 (De-Escalation and Planned Response – link) was produced on 12/01/2020 and complies with the National Consensus Policy and Discussion Paper on Use of Force.

In 2021, SPD’s use of force policy was updated to reflect AB392 and contains a verbatim citation of Penal Code § 835a.

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 115

Further, the policy contains the following definition of de-escalation:

A. DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS

5. DE-ESCALATI ON - Taking action or communicating verbally or nonverbally during a potential force encounter in an attempt to stabilize the situation and reduce the immediacy of the threat so that more time, options, and resources can be called upon to resolve the situation without the UOF or with a reduction of the force necessary. De- escalation tactics include, but are not limited to, warnings, verbal persuasion, and tactical repositioning.

As of October 2023, a revision of the department’s use of force policy retains the verbatim citation of Penal Code § 835a(e)(3) and existing definition of de-escalation.

Lastly, the ongoing revision of the department’s use of force policy contains the following:
● Compliance with Government Code § 7286 (link
)

City Council Meeting on 05/04/2021, Mayor Darrell Steinberg memorandum, Deadly Use of Force Recommendation
● http://sacramento.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=4935

● https://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer .php?view_id=22&clip_id=4935&meta_id=627523

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (DECEMBER 2023)
Fully Implemented.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/REQUEST
N/A
SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 116

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2019 UOF #7

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 12/10/2019

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2019

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 10/09/2023

P ARTIAL IMPLEMENTA TION X DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDA TION
GO 580.02 Use of Force

SPD UOF policy is outdated, uses vague or overly broad terms, and does not align with AB 392.

Amend GO 580.02(A)(5): Add language giving clear examples of de-escalation techniques.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
SPD's UOF policy does not specify the de-escalation techniques an officer is trained to deploy.

SPD RESPONSE
Based on the wide variety of circumstances that an officer may face when interacting with individuals who may be experiencing emotional or mental health crises, SPD is unable to provide exact examples of de-escalation techniques.

However, GO 580.06 (De-Escalation and Planned Response – link ) was produced on 12/01/2020 and
complies with the National Consensus Policy and Discussion Paper on Use of Force. This policy focuses on the role of law enforcement and provides concepts to safely resolve situations based on concepts of planning, time, assessment, and communication.

Starting in 2021, the Critical Decision-Making Model has been instructed in the police academy and mandatory annual Continued Professional Training (link).

In 2021, SPD’s use of force policy was updated to reflect AB392 and contains a verbatim citation of Penal Code § 835a.

As of October 2023, a revision of the department’s use of force policy retains the verbatim citation of Penal Code § 835a(e)(3) and existing definition of de-escalation.

Lastly, the ongoing revision of the department’s use of force policy contains the following:
● Compliance with Government Code § 7286 (link
)

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
City Council Meeting on 06/30/2020, City Council Policy, Police Use of Force ● http://sacramento.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=4652 SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 117

● https://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer .php?view_id=22&clip_id=4652&meta_id=588408

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (DECEMBER 2023)
Not Implemented. While SPD names some de-escalation techniques under SPD’s GO 580.06, the department is neither clear nor specific in providing examples of how these techniques are performed or whether officers are trained in those specific techniques. SCRPC continues to stand behind this recommendation and believes de-escalation examples are valuable and should be included.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/REQUEST
N/A

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 118

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2019 UOF #8

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 12/10/2019

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2019

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 10/09/2023

P ARTIAL IMPLEMENTA TION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDA TION
GO 580.02 Use of Force

SPD UOF policy is outdated, uses vague or overly broad terms, and does not align with AB 392.

Amend GO 580.02(A)(8)(a): Add language to the definition of "objectively reasonable force" to align with AB 392 using the following language:

a. OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE FORCE - An objective standard of force viewed from the perspective of an objectively reasonable peace officer, without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, and based on the totality of the circumstances known to, or perceived by, the officer at the time. (See Section Z-1, GRAHAM V.

CONNOR) Any force used must be objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. The number one factor in determining objective reasonableness is whether an imminent threat to the safety of the officer or another exists.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
This change follows the intent of AB 392.

SPD RESPONSE
In 2021, SPD’s use of force policy was updated to reflect AB392 and contains a verbatim citation of Penal Code § 835a. As such, the definition of “objectively reasonable force” was removed.

As of October 2023, a revision of the department’s use of force policy retains the verbatim citation of Penal Code § 835a.

Lastly, the ongoing revision of the department’s use of force policy contains the following:
● Compliance with Government Code § 7286 (link
)

City Council Meeting on 05/04/2021, Mayor Darrell Steinberg memorandum, Deadly Use of Force Recommendation
SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 119

● http://sacramento.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=4935 ● https://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer .php?view_id=22&clip_id=4935&meta_id=627523

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (DECEMBER 2023)
Partially Implemented. In 2019, SCPRC strongly urged SPD to align language in the UOF General Order to the language adopted in AB 392, which SPD has done. However, the language in AB 392 should be a floor and not a ceiling. The SCPRC issued this recommendation based on the need to provide clear and specific language to replace vague or overly broad terms used in the SPD’s prior UOF policy. As SCPRC reviews the existing language, it believes that the language recommended in 2019 should be reconsidered and used in the General Order, as it provides greater specificity and clarity to officers.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/REQUEST
1) Why was the definition of “objectively reasonable force” removed from the updated UOF policy? How does removing the definition of “objectively reasonable force” better align with the intent or spirit of AB392?

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 120

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2019 UOF #9

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 12/10/2019

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2019

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 10/09/2023

P ARTIAL IMPLEMENTA TION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDA TION
GO 580.02 Use of Force

SPD UOF policy is outdated, uses vague or overly broad terms, and does not align with AB 392.

Amend GO 580.02(H): Change the section concerning discharge of firearms and other deadly force using the following language:

H. DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS AND OTHER DEADLY FORCE

1. The use of a firearm or other deadly force is the most serious decision an peace officer may make. In determining whether deadly force is necessary, officers shall evaluate each situation considering the circumstances of each case and shall use other available resources and techniques if reasonably safe and feasible to an objectively reasonable officer.

2. An pe ace officer may discharge a firearm in the performance of their official duty only when there is no reasonably effective alternative.
a. To protect themselves or others from what is reasonably believed to be an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.
b. To prevent a crime where the suspect's actions are reasonably believed to place person(s) in imminent jeopardy of death or serious bodily injury.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
This change seeks to align the GO more closely with the state law requirements (AB 392).

SPD RESPONSE
In 2021, SPD’s use of force policy was updated to reflect AB392 and contains a verbatim citation of Penal Code § 835a.

“Discharge of Firearms and Other Deadly Force” is covered within GO 580.02(F), “Considerations Governing Use of Deadly Force” and adheres, verbatim to Penal Code § 835a(c)(1), regarding prior policy language and currently states:
(A) To defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person.
(B) To apprehend a fleeing person for any felony that threatened or resulted in death or serious bodily injury, if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless immediately apprehended. Where feasible, a peace officer shall, prior to the use of force, make reasonable efforts to identify themselves as a peace officer and to warn SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 121

that deadly force may be used, unless the officer has objectively reasonable grounds to believe the person is aware of those facts.

As of October 2023, a revision of the department’s use of force policy retains the verbatim citation of Penal Code § 835a.

Lastly, the ongoing revision of the department’s use of force policy contains the following:
● Compliance with Government Code § 7286 (link
)

City Council Meeting on 05/04/2021, Mayor Darrell Steinberg memorandum, Deadly Use of Force Recommendation
● http://sacramento.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=4935

● https://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer .php?view_id=22&clip_id=4935&meta_id=627523

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (DECEMBER 2023)
Partially Implemented. In 2019, SCPRC strongly urged SPD to align language in the UOF General Order to the language adopted in AB 392, which SPD has done. However, the language in AB 392 should be a floor and not a ceiling. As SCPRC reviews the existing language it believes that the language recommended in 2019 should be reconsidered and used in the General Order, as it provides greater specificity and clarity to officers and the public.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/REQUEST
Does SPD consider AB392 / Penal Code 835a to serve as the floor or the ceiling for its UOF policy? SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 122

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2019 UOF #10

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 12/10/2019

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2019

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 10/09/2023

P ARTIAL IMPLEMENTA TION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDA TION
GO 580.02 Use of Force

SPD UOF policy is outdated, uses vague or overly broad terms, and does not align with AB 392.

Amend GO 580.02(B)(2): Provide clarification what it means to "retreat" using the following language:

2. Force shall be used in compliance with Penal Code Section 835a, which states "Any peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense may use objectively reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape or to overcome resistance. A peace officer who makes or attempts to make an arrest need not retreat or desist from his their efforts because of the resistance or threatened resistance of the person being arrested; nor shall such officer be deemed an aggressor or lose his their right to self- defense by the use of objectively reasonable force to effect the arrest or to prevent escape or to overcome resistance.…." "retreat" does not mean tactical repositioning or other de-escalation tactics.".

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
This change seeks to align the GO more closely with the state law requirements (AB 392).

SPD RESPONSE
In 2021, SPD’s use of force policy was updated to reflect AB392 and contains a verbatim citation of Penal Code § 835a.

The term “retreat” is codified in PC 835a(d) and incorporated into SPD’s existing policy:

A peace officer who makes or attempts to make an arrest need not retreat or desist from their efforts by reason of the resistance or threatened resistance of the person being arrested. A peace officer shall not be deemed an aggressor or lose the right to self-defense by the use of objectively reasonable force in compliance with subdivisions (b) and (c) to effect the arrest or to prevent escape or to overcome resistance. For the purposes of this subdivision, “retreat” does not mean tactical repositioning or other de-escalation tactics.

As of October 2023, a revision of the department’s use of force policy retains the verbatim citation of Penal Code § 835a.

Lastly, the ongoing revision of the department’s use of force policy contains the following:
● Compliance with Government Code § 7286 (link
)
SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 123

City Council Meeting on 05/04/2021, Mayor Darrell Steinberg memorandum, Deadly Use of Force Recommendation
● http://sacramento.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=4935

● https://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer .php?view_id=22&clip_id=4935&meta_id=627523

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (DECEMBER 2023)
Fully Implemented.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/REQUEST
N/A

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 124

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2019 UOF #11

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 12/10/2019

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2019

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 10/09/2023

P ARTIAL IMPLEMENTA TION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDA TION
GO 580.02 Use of Force

SPD UOF policy is outdated, uses vague or overly broad terms, and does not align with AB 392.

Amend GO 580.02(B)(3): Update the policy to provide clarification on when an officer can use deadly force using the following language:

3. An peace officer may use deadly force if, under the circumstances, the officer reasonable believes that the suspect poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, either to the officer or to others. who has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense may use objectively reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape, or to overcome resistance. A peace officer is justified in using deadly force upon another person only when the officer reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, that such force is necessary for either of the following reasons:

To defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the peace officer or to another person.

To apprehend a fleeing person for any felony that threatened or resulted in death or serious bodily injury, if the peace officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless immediately apprehended. Where feasible, a peace officer shall, prior to the use of force, make reasonable efforts to identify themselves as a peace officer and to warn that deadly force may be used, unless the officer has objectively reasonable grounds to believe the person is aware of those facts.

A peace officer shall not use deadly force against a person based on the danger that person poses to themselves, if an objectively reasonable officer would believe the person does not pose an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the peace officer or to another person.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
This change seeks to align the GO more closely with the state law requirements (AB 392).

SPD RESPONSE
In 2021, SPD’s use of force policy was updated to reflect AB392 and contains a verbatim citation of Penal Code § 835a.

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 125

Accordingly, GO 580.02(F), “Considerations Governing Use of Deadly Force,” adheres, verbatim, to Penal Code § 835a(c)(1), regarding prior policy language and states:
(A) To defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person.
(B) To apprehend a fleeing person for any felony that threatened or resulted in death or serious bodily injury, if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless immediately apprehended. Where feasible, a peace officer shall, prior to the use of force, make reasonable efforts to identify themselves as a peace officer and to warn that deadly force may be used, unless the officer has objectively reasonable grounds to believe the person is aware of those facts.

As of October 2023, a revision of the department’s use of force policy retains the verbatim citation of Penal Code § 835a.

Lastly, the ongoing revision of the department’s use of force policy contains the following:
● Compliance with Government Code § 7286 (link
)

City Council Meeting on 05/04/2021, Mayor Darrell Steinberg memorandum, Deadly Use of Force Recommendation
● http://sacramento.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=4935

● https://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer .php?view_id=22&clip_id=4935&meta_id=627523

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (DECEMBER 2023)
Fully Implemented.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/REQUEST
N/A

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 126

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2019 UOF #12

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 12/10/2019

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2019

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 10/09/2023

P ARTIAL IMPLEMENTA TION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDA TION
GO 580.02 Use of Force

SPD policy under-emphasizes the need for de-escalation during police encounters.

Amend GO 580.02(B)(6): Provide increase focus on de-escalation using the following language:

6. A peace officer shall attempt to control an incident through sound tactics, including the use of time, distance, communications, tactical repositioning, and available resources, in an effort to reduce or avoid the need to use force whenever it is safe, feasible, and reasonable to do so. When feasible under the totality of the circumstances and where it may be accomplished without increasing the risk of harm to officers or others, officers should attempt to de-escalate situations.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Criminal justice researchers shows that de-escalation training in police departments can make police encounters with the public safer for everyone, reducing the use of force incidents, citizen injuries and officer injuries.

SPD RESPONSE
GO 580.06 (De-Escalation and Planned Response – link) was produced on 12/01/2020 and complies with the National Consensus Policy and Discussion Paper on Use of Force. This policy focuses on the role of law enforcement and provides concepts to safely resolve situations based on concepts of planning, time, assessment, and communication.

Starting in 2021, the Critical Decision-Making Model has been instructed in the police academy and mandatory annual Continued Professional Training (link).

Additionally, in 2021, SPD’s use of force policy was updated to reflect AB392 and contains a verbatim citation of Penal Code § 835a. This revision contains the following:

A. DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 127

6. CRISIS INTERVENTION TECHNIQUES (CIT) - A collaborative approach to safely and effectively address the needs of people with mental illnesses, link them to appropriate services, and divert them from the criminal justice system if appropriate. The primary goal of CIT is to improve peace officer and mental health consumer safety while reducing injuries to peace officers and consumers during law enforcement contacts. Crisis intervention techniques include using distance, time, verbal tactics, or other tactics to de- escalate a situation.

As of October 2023, a revision of the department’s use of force policy retains the verbatim citation of Penal Code § 835a.

Lastly, the ongoing revision of the department’s use of force policy contains the following:
● Compliance with Government Code § 7286 (link
)

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
N/A

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (DECEMBER 2023)
Fully Implemented.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/REQUEST
N/A

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 128

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2019 UOF #13

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 12/10/2019

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2019

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 10/09/2023

P ARTIAL IMPLEMENTA TION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDA TION
GO 580.02 Use of Force

Amend GO 580.02(B)(9): Require the use of verbal warnings before an officer uses force using the following language.

9. A peace officer shall give warning unless officer has objectively reasonable grounds to believe person is aware of that fact that the officer is a peace officer. If feasible, and if doing so would not increase the danger to the officer or others, the officer shall give a verbal warning to submit to the authority of the officer before using force.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
[Changes to this General Order were based on the text as it read in 2019. This GO was updated on

12.26.21]

Criminal justice researchers shows that de-escalation training in police departments can make police encounters with the public safer for everyone, reducing the use of force incidents, citizen injuries and officer injuries. Increasing the use of verbal warnings might help de-escalate a situation.

SPD RESPONSE
In 2021, SPD’s use of force policy was updated to include the following “Verbal Warning ” language (GO 580.02(C)):

If feasible, and if doing so would not increase the danger to the peace officer or another person, the peace officer shall make every attempt to identify themselves and to issue a clear and comprehensible verbal warning before using any force that is likely to cause serious bodily injury or death, so that the subject(s) are given the opportunity to submit to the authority of the peace officer.

SPD has a more restrictive policy requiring verbal warnings requirement, whenever feasible in accordance with case law (Powell v. Snook, 2022).

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
City Council Meeting on 06/01/2021, City Council Policy, Police Use of Force ● 2:30PM City Council (Special Meeting) (granicus.com)
● Microsoft Word - 04022013 Agenda (granicus.com)
SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 129

APPENDIX
N/A

Partially Implemented. While the SCPRC appreciates the addition of language concerning verbal warnings, the use of “feasible” provides such wide latitude for police officers to not use verbal warnings that it makes it almost meaningless. Verbal warnings take only seconds to issue, and benefits not just the suspect or fellow officers who may be operating nearby, but also warns any bystanders within the vicinity who could be at risk.

It can mean the difference between life and death, even in the Powell v. Snook case the Department cites in justifying this language. Putting aside the fact that the Snook scenario is such a rare and extreme example that it would serve better as the exception rather than the rule, it is debatable as to whether the officer could have avoided deadly force against an innocent person had they taken the 3-5 seconds to identify themselves and warned him not to shoot.

It raises an important social question that gets to the core of movements for police accountability: does an officer’s subjective feelings of fear, or their perception of safety, outweigh the objective reality of a civilian’s threat, safety, rights, or wellbeing?

SCPRC QUESTIONS/REQUEST
1) Do an SPD officer’s subjective feelings of fear, or perception of safety, outweigh the objective reality of a civilian’s threat, safety, rights, or well-being?

SCPRC EVALUATION (DECEMBER 2023)
SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 130

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2019 UOF #14

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 12/10/2019

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2019

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT X
RETURNED TO SCPRC 10/09/2023

P ARTIAL IMPLEMENTA TION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDA TION
GO 580.02 Use of Force

SPD policy does not require drug testing of peace officers after a UOF incident.

Amend GO 580.02(L)(6): Require mandatory drug testing for police officers within 24 hours following a UOF incident leading to a death or serious bodily injury. Add a new line under Section L, subsection 6 using the following language:

d. The involved officer(s) shall submit to chemical testing for use of drugs or alcohol by use of handheld preliminary blood alcohol device at the scene and later transported to a medical facility for blood test or to police station for breath test via breath machine. Testing at medical facility or police department shall be conducted within 2 hours to preserve evidence, if any.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
It is important to ensure that when peace officers are making life and death decisions their judgement not be impaired.

While investigations into officer-involved shootings routinely include drug testing for people killed by a peace officer, SPD's UOF policy does not require officers to submit to drug testing after they shoot or kill someone.

SPD RESPONSE
At this time, drug testing of officers after a use of force cannot be implemented as this topic is a contractual issue subject to labor agreements.

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
City Council Meeting on 06/1/2021, City Council Policy, Police Use of Force ● 2:30PM City Council (Special Meeting) (granicus.com)
● Microsoft Word - 04022013 Agenda (granicus.com)

APPENDIX
N/A

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 131

SCPRC EVALUATION (DECEMBER 2023)
Not Implemented. The Department’s response claiming that drug testing of police officers to be a “contractual issue subject to labor agreements” bears similarity to previous assertions made during the 2021 City Council discussions concerning updates to SPD’s UOF policy. At the time, when the Department asserted that UOF policy was a contractual issue subject to labor negotiations, this claim was found to be incorrect given existing court precedents out of San Francisco, which found UOF policy to be a legislative issue squarely within the authority of the legislative governing body.

The SCPRC can find no such mention of drug testing, substance use testing, or prohibitions thereof anywhere within the 2022-2023 labor agreement with the Sacramento Police Officers Association (SPOA) or any prior agreements approved by the City. This recommendation could be implemented if the City Council directed SPD to require drug testing.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/REQUEST
1) What section of the 2022-2023 SPOA labor agreement (or current contract in effective) addresses mandatory drug testing, psychological evaluation, or other form of medical examination for SPD police officers?
2) Is there existing city code, state or federal statute, or applicable case law that serves to limit, restrict, or prohibit the mandatory drug testing, psychological evaluation, or other form of medical examination of police officers involved in UOF incidents?

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 132

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2019 UOF #15

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 12/10/2019

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED X PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2019

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 10/09/2023

P ARTIAL IMPLEMENTA TION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDA TION
GO 580.02 Use of Force

Updating reasonableness standard.

Amend GO 580.02(O)(1): Remove the following language from the case law reference in Graham v.

Connor (1989) [490 U.S. 386] to align the updated "reasonableness" standard under AB 392:

1. GRAHAM V. CONNOR (1989) 490 U.S.386 is a legal standard which defines what reasonable force is.

The court’s decision “requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an imminent threat to the safety of the officer or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” In addition, "the 'reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of an objectively reasonable peace officer on scene, rather than with 20/20 vision of hindsight... the question is whether the officers' actions are 'objectively reasonable' in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them."

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
This change seeks to align the GO more closely with the state law requirements (AB 392).

SPD RESPONSE
In 2021, SPD’s use of force policy was updated to reflect AB392 and contains a verbatim citation of Penal Code § 835a.

GO 580.02(S)(3) is currently written:

3. GRAHAM V. CONNOR 490 U.S. 386 (1989) sets the legal standard for reasonable force. The court's decision "requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an imminent threat to the safety of the officer or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight." In addition, "the 'reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on scene, rather than with 20/20 vision of hindsight... the question is whether the officers' actions are 'objectively reasonable' in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them.

As of October 2023, a revision of the department’s use of force policy retains the verbatim citation of Penal Code § 835a and removes the above reference.

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 133

Lastly, the ongoing revision of the department’s use of force policy contains the following:
● Compliance with Government Code § 7286 (link)

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (DECEMBER 2023)
Not Implemented. SPD has not updated its interpretation of Graham v. Connor to align with the updated “reasonableness” standard set under AB392 and maintains its outdated language in the current UOF policy.

The Commission notes during its review that SPD amended the recommendation to exclude the outdated section we had explicitly highlighted for removal, as seen below:

ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION:

ALTERED RECOMMENDATION:

SCPRC QUESTIONS/REQUEST

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 134

1) Why was the SCPRC original recommendation showing its alterations to SPD language removed from this response file?

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 135

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2019 UOF #16

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 12/10/2019

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2019

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 10/09/2023

P ARTIAL IMPLEMENTA TION X DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDA TION
GO 580.02 Use of Force

SPD lacks a clear or comprehensive reporting policy that is transparent for members of the public.

Adopt a New General Order: Create a stand -alone policy establishing SPD reporting policy that is referenced in other SPD policies/orders. The policy should provide additional reporting requirements, including:

(1) Specifying the three different levels of UOF

(2) Treating seizures as use of force and reported under a UOF level.

(3) Removing UOF reporting discretion to require all UOF incidents be reported.

(4) When use of force is used leading to a death or serious bodily injury, require a mandatory drug test of police officer within 24 hours of the incident.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Additional reporting will increase transparency and accountability.

SPD RESPONSE
In 2021, SPD’s use of force (UOF) policy was updated to reflect AB392 and contains a verbatim citation of Penal Code § 835a.

1. The latest revision includes an appendix outlining three levels of UOF and respective reporting requirements.

2. A seizure can occur without any use of force or with such minimal force that it would not rise to the level of a reportable use of force. Therefore, a seizure meeting this definition would not be considered a use of force.

3. Based on the force definitions of reportable UOF (below), there exists no discretion for choosing to report a UOF – GO 580.02(A)(10):

REPORTABLE UOF - Any UOF that causes injury as defined below; any UOF whether or not it results in injury, involving the discharge of a firearm, a canine bite, or use of an impact weapon, chemical agent, or CED; and any UOF, whether or not it results in injury, that deviates from the techniques taught and the equipment provided by the department (section G.4. & G.5.).

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 136

4. At this time, drug testing of officers after a use of force cannot be implemented as this topic is a contractual issue subject to labor agreements.

Additionally, there exists mandatory reporting of uses of force that require reporting to a supervisor and documentation used during an administrative review (GO 580.01 – Use of Force Review Board – link ).

As of October 2023, a revision of the department’s use of force policy retains the verbatim citation of Penal Code § 835a.

Lastly, the ongoing revision of the department’s use of force policy contains the following:
● Compliance with Government Code § 7286 (link
)

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (DECEMBER 2023)
Started Implementation. The SCPRC finds that SPD has implemented only 1 out of 4 recommended reporting criteria:

1. The Department does include an appendix detailing the three different UOF levels and reporting requirements. However, it is unclear as to whether SPD officers are required to name the specific UOF level under its “type of force” mentioned under Section O(1)(g).

2. While the Department may not consider seizures to rise to the level of UOF, the US Supreme Court does consider the use of deadly force to prevent escape as an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment in Tennessee v . Garner [471 U.S. 1 (1985)]. In fact, this case is referenced within SPD’s UOF policy under Section S. Even if it were not, the Commission would insist on requiring seizures being reported in all UOF incidents, reportable or otherwise, in the interest of transparency. Our rationale is supported in the recent 2023 Audit of SPD’s Search & Seizure Policy conducted by the Office of Public Safety Accountability that found consistent patterns of unlawful searches and seizures of civilians’ cellphones, vehicles, and other property in violation of Fourth Amendment rights.

3. The very inclusion of a “Reportable UOF” definition is particularly confusing, if not counterintuitive, as the existence of “reportable” UOF would seem to include the existence of “nonreportable” UOF. If the Department provides no discretion for officers to report UOF incidents, then providing clear and direct language requiring its officers to report all UOF incidents would be the most effective and appropriate option.

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 137

4. While SPD’s response claims that drug testing of police officers is subject to labor negotiations, the SCPRC can find no such mention of drug testing or substance use mentioned anywhere the current labor contract with the Sacramento Police Officers Association (SPOA) or previous contracts approved prior to March 2023. The Commission disagrees with this assertion, which bears similarity to claims made during City Council discussions regarding the 2021 UOF policy where the Department falsely asserted that UOF policy is a contractual issue subject to labor negotiations when it was not. The Commission awaits the Department to verify its claim requested in our subsequent response under UOF Recommendation #14.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/REQUEST
1) Are there specific criteria for determining when a UOF incident is reportable or not? 2) Based on its current definition of “Reportable UOF,” what scenarios, if any, may exist where an SPD officer is not required to report a UOF incident?
3) Does the Department track the number of non-reportable UOF incidents in anyway? If yes, how many UOF incidents were considered?

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 138

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2019 UOF #17

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 12/10/2019

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2019

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 10/09/2023

P ARTIAL IMPLEMENTA TION DENIED X

SCPRC RECOMMENDA TION
GO 580.13 Foot Pursuit

SPD policy is outdated. SPD does not require officers to consider the seriousness of suspected criminal activity when considering a foot pursuit.

Amend GO 580.13(C)(4): Require an SPD officer to consider the gravity of suspected activity in deciding whether to initiate, continue, or terminate a foot pursuit. Add a new line under Section C, subsection 4 using the following language:

4. In deciding whether to initiate, continue, or terminate a foot pursuit, officers should consider the following factors:
(a) The gravity of the suspected activity.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
In deciding whether to initiate, continue, or terminate a foot pursuit an SPD officer is required to consider a variety of factors. However, a factor that is not currently included is the gravity of the suspected activity.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police on their webpage state "Foot pursuits are inherently dangerous. Therefore, officer and public safety should be the overriding consideration in determining a foot pursuit is initiated or continued or not." This change would further require the officer to evaluate if the pursuit is warranted.

SPD RESPONSE
SPD agrees in concept to this recommendation. However, no change has been made to the policy because the existing policy language is more specific than this proposed recommendation.

• It requires that officers to continually assess and evaluate whether the need for apprehension justifies the risk to the safety of the officer(s), the public, and the fleeing suspect.

• Further, an officer may pursue suspects only when he or she reasonably believes the suspect has committed an act that would justify a stop, investigative detention, or arrest.

• Also, officers are required to consider the criminal violation, whether the suspect is identified and can be apprehended later.

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 139

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (DECEMBER 2023)
Not Implemented. The SCPRC disagrees that SPD’s Foot Pursuit policy is more specific than this recommendation. The inclusion of this language in the General Order would affirmatively require police officers to consider the gravity of the suspected criminal activity. Given how dangerous a pursuit can be, the first requirement for officers should be to consider in a meaningful way whether suspected criminal activity warrants pursuit.

Furthermore, while the Department provides police officers near-unlimited discretion in their consideration, but SPD appears to disavow all responsibility from the officer for initiating foot pursuit and places that responsibility squarely on the suspect, as observed in GO 580.13(B):

1. Although it is an officer’s decision to initiate a stop, it is the suspect or violator who decides to initiate a foot pursuit by fleeing.

Additionally, the Commission is concerned with how the current language in Section B may inadvertently incentivize or coerce SPD officers to initiate foot pursuits based on existing cultural stigmas within law enforcement and “broken windows” policing practices:

2. No sworn officer shall be disciplined for not initiating, not engaging in, or for terminating a foot pursuit if the risk of pursuing outweighs the need for apprehension.

Considering the multitude of factors officers are expected to consider, coupled with the threat of being disciplined if an officer is wrong, it is likely that officers may choose to “pursue first, ask questions later” if only to avoid the possibility of disciplinary action, even when the risk of pursuit outweighs the need to apprehend.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/REQUEST
1) What disciplinary measures are in place for when SPD officers violate its Foot Pursuit policy? What disciplinary measures exist when SPD officers choose to not initiate, engage in, or terminate a foot pursuit when the need for apprehension outweighs the risk of pursuit?

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 140

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2019 UOF #18

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 12/10/2019

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 12/31/2019

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT
RETURNED TO SCPRC 10/09/2023

P ARTIAL IMPLEMENTA TION DENIED X

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
GO 580.13 Foot Pursuit

SPD policy is outdated. SPD does not require activating a body worn camera use before initiating a foot pursuit.

Amend GO 580.13(D): Require that an SPD officer initiating a foot pursuit to always, unless physically unable, activate their body worn camera. If physically unable, an officer must activate their body worn camera as soon as physically able and follow policy.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
The purpose of requiring body worn cameras is to ensure transparency and accountability of law enforcement officers, and therefore should be on at all times with minimal exceptions.

SPD RESPONSE
SPD agrees in concept to these recommendations. However, no change has been made to the policy because the existing policy language is more specific than these proposed recommendations.

The policy requires officers to activate their camera as soon as is practical. Additionally, the policy provides guidance that if is not feasible due to risk to the safety of the employee or others, the employee should activate the BWC as soon as it is safe to do so.

SPD policy requires documentation if a BWC is not activated. Also, there are replacement devices available at each station, therefore, officers are not placed into service without a functioning body-worn camera.

SPD policy currently requires officers to activate their body worn cameras during the entirety of dispatched calls for service, but is more specific in that it states, “Employees shall activate their BWC during investigations and enforcement activity, including evidence collection, whether self-initiated or in response to a dispatched call.”

The BWC and a patrol vehicle’s in-car camera (ICC) are automatically activated when a patrol vehicle’s overhead lights are activated. Additionally, officers are equipped with activation devices affixed to their holsters, which also, activate BWC and ICC devices within range.

The policy is specific regarding activation and deactivation of the cameras.

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 141

APPENDIX
N/A

SCPRC EVALUATION (DECEMBER 2023)
Not Implemented. SPD’s rationale for rejecting this recommendation is practically identical to its response in UOF Recommendation #17: If the Department agrees “in concept” with the Commission’s recommendation to always require BWC activation when an officer initiates a foot pursuit, then it precludes any rationale for rejecting the addition of clear language that affirmatively requires officers to do so.

By allowing a police officer unlimited discretion in when to activate their BWC, and without any clear or articulated disciplinary action for failing to do so, the Department not only fails in prioritizing transparency necessary to build and maintain trust among community members, but also seems to shield its personnel from any meaningful accountability the community it serves.

SCPRC QUESTIONS/REQUEST
1) What are disciplinary measures are in place for when SPD officers fail to activate the BWC, even when it is feasible and safe to do so? What disciplinary measures exist for when SPD officers deactivate their BWC or ICC?
2) Is there a written policy that details a progressive disciplinary matrix for SPD personnel?

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 142

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2023 Search & Seizure #1

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 02/12/2024

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT

RETURNED TO SCPRC

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
RM 523.02 Search & Handcuff Manual
RM 526.01 Search Manual
RM 526.03 Asset Forfeiture Manual
GO 210.05 Biased-Based Policing
GO 210.09 Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) Compliance GO 523.06 Release under Section 849(B) PC
GO 526.01 Search & Seizures
GO 526.02 Investigative Detentions

SPD does not have a current, stand-alone policy regarding the Fourth Amendment and includes search and seizure.

Adopt a New Reference Manual(s): Create a standalone, affirmative Fourth Amendment policy that clearly articulates SPD’s authority, procedures, and limits for conducting all manner of search and seizure practices. This policy should comprehensively govern all subsequent general orders related to search and seizure policies.

This policy should include, but not be limited to:
i. Verbatim language of the US Constitution's Fourth Amendment at the top of the policy. ii. Clear, detailed descriptions of SPD's rules, procedures and limits for conducting pat-downs, warrantless searches, warrantless entry, investigatory stops, and investigative detentions for detainees, arrestees, and bystanders. This includes the criteria and/or factors for initiating searches or seizures , the manner and scope of such practices. iii. Clear, detailed description of SPD’s rules, procedures, criteria and/or factors for handcuffing detainees or arrestees, including authorized situations and limits for when officers may handcuff a detainee.
iv. Clear, detailed descriptions of the processes for reclaiming seized property, contesting asset forfeitures, and requesting compensation for damaged or destroyed property. v. Clear, detailed description of SPD’s disciplinary matrix for misconduct involving improper searches or seizures, including an outline of disciplinary actions up to, but not limited to, termination.
vi. Contact information and the process for filing complaints to SPD Internal Affairs and to the Office of Public Safety Accountability.
vii. Direct legal references to all State laws, City Codes, Reference Manuals or General Orders that govern this policy, with a written note for how this policy will be updated when new governing policies are adopted.
viii. Direct reference to all US court cases applicable to the following constitutional protections:

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 143

a. The Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable search and seizure, including cases relevant to the powers of police to conduct warrantless searches and warrantless entries.
b. The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of the right of due process and just compensation, including cases relevant to police powers to conduct civil asset forfeitures. c. The First Amendment’s protections for free speech, including cases affirming the right to record police officers and other public officials.
d. The Eighth Amendment’s protection against excessive fines, including cases involving the proportionality of amounts forfeited with the severity of criminal offense.

Upon approval by the Office of the Chief, this policy should be submitted to the SCPRC for review and evaluation before it is activated. Upon activation, this policy should be publicly available and accessible for review on the City’s website.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
The SCPRC concurs with all findings and recommendations submitted by OPSA in its 2023 Audit of SPD’s Search and Seizure Policy. Under Finding #1, OPSA determined that SPD does not have a current, standalone policy regarding the Fourth Amendment that includes search and seizure, which is implicated in just about every interaction between SPD police officers and civilians, including 109 misconduct complaints alleging a violation of the Fourth Amendment. OPSA issued several recommendations:
• SPD should update its search and seizure manual from 2007. • SPD should draft a clear and detailed stand-alone Fourth Amendment policy that includes such things as cell phone searches, probations searches, investigatory stops, and consent searches.

While the S CPRC concurs with OPSA's findings and recommendations, we also recognize the limits in staffing, time, and other resources experienced by OPSA which may have limited the scope of their review and the level of detail in their recommendations. In its function as an advisory body tasked with providing civilian oversight and review of SPD policies, practices, and procedures, the Commission provides its own recommendations for how the Department may implement OPSA’s recommendations in alignment with the values of the community they serve. The Commission considers the Department’s implementation of this recommendation critical for ensuring transparency and rebuild public trust among community members given how the United States Supreme Court, federal district court, and California state courts have issued several significant decisions pertaining to the Fourth Amendment since 1995.

OPSA has provided at least two model policies from the San Francisco Police Department and Baltimore Police Department for SPD to reference as it creates this policy, which can be found in Appendix A of OPSA's audit. These sample policies include:
• San Francisco Police Department, General Order 821: Search and Seizure, effective 04/18/2018 • San Francisco Adult Probation Department, Policy 3.08.03: Search and Seizure, effective 04/18/2018
• Baltimore Police Department, Policy 1112: Field Interviews, Investigative Stops, Weapons Pat- Downs & Searches, published 02/09/2021

demonstration showing the SPD recognizes the Fourth Amendment right against unlawful searches & seizures:
• Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
• Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977)
• Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009)
• Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009)
• Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011)
• United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)
• Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014)
• Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015)
• Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. ____, [138 S. Ct. 2206] (2018) • People v Fews, 27 Cal.App.5th 553 (2018)
• U.S. v. Landeros. 913 F.3d 862 (9th Cir. 2019)
• Caniglia v. Strom, 593 U.S. ____, [141 S. Ct. 1596] (2021)

SPD RESPONSE

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS

APPENDIX

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 145

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2023 Search & Seizure #2

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 02/12/2024

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT

RETURNED TO SCPRC

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SPD's practice of automatic pat-downs of civilians are in direct conflict with the Fourth Amendment and US Supreme Court precedent

Adopt a New General Order(s): Establish a standalone, affirmative policy governing SPD’s use of pat- downs, consent searches, investigatory stops, and investigative detentions. This policy should provide clear, detailed descriptions of SPD’s authority, procedures and limits for conducting pat-downs, consent searches, investigatory stops and investigative detentions. This policy should apply to all investigations given by assignment or self-initiated by SPD officers, and use language that unequivocally requires SPD officers to clearly articulate in their reports why they stopped a person and/or why they felt the need to pat down the person.

This policy should include, but not be limited to:
i. Verbatim language of the US Constitution's Fourth Amendment at the top of the policy. ii. Clear definitions of “pat-downs,” “consent searches,” “investigatory stops,” and “investigative detentions,” including relevant definitions that articulate the differences between search techniques, the nuance between “stops” and “detentions,” and distinguishing consent searches from shows of force.
iii. Clear, detailed descriptions of the criteria and/or rationale for initiating pat-downs and consent searches, including the limits and technical aspects for conducting them. iv. Clear, detailed descriptions of the criteria and/or rationale for initiating investigatory stops, including the limits and technical aspects for conducting them. v. Clear, detailed descriptions of the criteria and/or rationale for initiating investigative detentions, including the factors, procedures, and limits for handcuffing detainees. vi. Contact information and procedures for filing complaints to both SPD Internal Affairs and to the Office of Public Safety Accountability, including a clear outline of disciplinary actions for violating the policy.
vii. Direct legal references to any State laws, City Codes, Reference Manuals and General Orders governing this policy or relevant to its enforcement, with a written note for updating this section when corresponding policies are adopted.

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 146

Upon activation, SPD should immediately provide training to new recruits on investigatory stops, pat downs, reasonable suspicion, and Fourth Amendment fundamentals in accordance with the newly issued policy. SPD should provide supplementary training for all active sworn officers using a staggered schedule, starting with its Patrol and Metro Division until all sworn officers have received this training.

The Department should provide continuous trainings of search and seizure practices that officers must complete on a biannual basis at minimum.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Under Finding #2, OPSA determined that unlawful pat down searches occurred in a substantial number of the sustained cases reviewed, and that the Fourth Amendment requires SPD officers to be able to articulate that a civilian is armed or dangerous. OPSA issued several recommendations:
viii. PD should require officers to articulate in their reports why they stopped a citizen and/or why they felt the need to pat down the person.
ix. SPD should establish a clear detailed policy on pat downs, investigatory stops, and investigative detentions.
x. SPD should provide training to new recruits and police officers on investigatory stops, pat downs, reasonable suspicion, and Fourth Amendment fundamentals, in accordance with the newly issued policy.

The Commission concurs with OPSA’s recommendations and provides the following recommendations for how the Department may remedy these findings and implement OPSA’s recommendations in alignment with the values of the community they serve:
• Establish the policy as an affirmative policy to apply to all investigations given by assignment or self-initiated by SPD officers and requires SPD officers to clearly articulate in their reports why a person was stopped and/or why officers felt the need to pat down the person during the stop without exception.
• Provide new training on investigatory stops, pat downs, reasonable suspicion, and Fourth Amendment fundamentals in accordance with the newly issued policy immediately for new recruits. For active duty personnel, provide supplementary training using a staggered scheduled to allow for all sworn officers to receive the full and comprehensive training without service interruptions, starting personnel serving in the Patrol and Metro Divisions. • Provide supplementary trainings for all sworn officers as part of SPD’s legally required POST training and recurring training curriculums on a biannual basis.

Fortunately for the Department, OPSA has provided a model policy from San Francisco Police Department for SPD to reference as it creates this policy, which can be found in Appendix B of OPSA's audit. These policies include:
• San Francisco Police Department, General Order 821: Search and Seizure, effective 04/18/2018 • Baltimore Police Department, Policy 1112: Field Interviews, Investigative Stops, Weapons Pat- Downs & Searches, published 02/09/2021

demonstration showing the SPD recognizes the Fourth Amendment right against unlawful searches & seizures:
• Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
• Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977)

SPD RESPONSE

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS

APPENDIX

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 148

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2023 Search & Seizure #3

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 02/12/2024

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT

RETURNED TO SCPRC

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
RM 523.02 Search & Handcuff Manual
RM 526.01 Search Manual
RM 526.03 Asset Forfeiture Manual
GO 210.05 Biased-Based Policing
GO 523.06 Release under Section 849(B) PC
GO 526.01 Search & Seizures
GO 526.02 Investigative Detentions
GO 525.01 Evidence and Property

SPD Officers improperly searched or seized community members' cell phones in direct violation of State and Federal Laws.

Adopt a New General Order(s): Establish a standalone, affirmative policy that clearly defines and articulates SPD's authority, procedures, and limits upon conducting searches or seizures of cell phones, computers, digital storage devices, and other electronic or digital property. The policy should require SPD officers to report all incidents where such devices are searched or seized, including why they searched a person's device(s) and/or why they felt the need to seize the device(s).

The policy should clearly affirm the First Amendment right of the public to record a police officer and other public officials in the course of their official duties, including referencing any disciplinary measures for SPD officers who violate this policy.

The policy should include, but is not limited to:
i. Clear definitions of “cell phones,” “computers,” “digital storage device,” and other applicable electronic or digital property which may be subject to a search or seizure by SPD. ii. The criteria and/or rationale for authorizing a warrantless search or seizure of cell phones, computers, and other digital storage devices in any investigation. iii. Clear, detailed descriptions for the process for retrieving any seized devices during an investigation, contesting asset forfeitures, and requesting compensation for damaged or destroyed property. This includes a reasonable expectation for how long SPD may hold such devices as evidence, when or if such devices may not be returned, any conditions an individual can reasonably expect SPD to return the device. ix. Contact information and procedures for filing complaints to both SPD Internal Affairs and to the Office of Public Safety Accountability, including a clear outline of disciplinary actions for violating the policy.
iv. Direct legal references to all State laws, City Codes, Reference Manuals or General Orders that govern this policy, with a written note for how this policy will be updated when new governing policies are adopted.
v. Direct reference to all US court cases applicable to the following constitutional protections:

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 149

a. The Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable search and seizure, including cases relevant to police powers to conduct warrantless searches , and warrantless entries.
b. The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of the right of due process and just compensation, including cases relevant to police powers to conduct civil asset forfeitures. c. The First Amendment’s protections for free speech, including cases affirming the right to record police officers and other public officials.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Under Finding #3, OPSA determined that SPD officers violated state and federal laws by improperly searching or seizing cell phones of civilians, finding multiple cases reviewed in which SPD officers not only searched a detainee’s cell phone without a warrant and even threatened jail time to a detainee for failing to allow officers to search their cell phone, but also forcibly seized cell phones from bystanders who were recording officers in public. OPSA issued the following recommendation: SPD should develop a clearly defined policy outlining procedures for the search and seizure of cell phones.

The Commission concurs with OPSA’s recommendations and provides the following recommendations for how the Department may remedy these findings and implement OPSA’s recommendations in alignment with the values of the community they serve. The Commission is familiar with public claims of SPD conducting warrantless searches and seizures of community members’ cell phones as far back as 2020’s George Floyd protests. We find this pattern of SPD behavior and conduct to have implications far beyond warrantless searches of cell phones, but also extends to the improper search and seizure of computers, digital media and digital storage devices. Therefore, the Commission recommends a standalone, affirmative policy that clearly defines and articulates SPD's authority, procedures, and limits upon conducting searches or seizures of cell phones, computers, digital storage devices, and other electronic or digital property.

OPSA has provided at least two model policies from the San Francisco Police Department and Baltimore Police Department for SPD to reference as it creates this policy, which can be found in Appendix E of OPSA's audit. The Commission recommends these model policies serve as the floor for the Department’ s policy drafting, and not the ceiling. The sample policies include:
• San Francisco Adult Probation Department, Policy 3.08.03: Search and Seizure, effective 04/18/2018
• San Francisco Police Department, General Order 5.07: Rights of Onlookers, effective 02/22/1995 • Baltimore Police Department, Policy 1017: Mobile Device Searches, effective 08/01/2016

The Commission also recommends the following court cases referenced in OPSA’s Audit be cited in any new general order or reference manual pertaining to search and seizure policy relevant to cell phones and other electronic devices, as a good-faith demonstration showing the SPD recognizes the Fourth Amendment right against unlawful searches & seizures and the First Amendment right to record the police and/or other public officials:
• Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) - search & seizure • United States v. Lara, 815 F. 3d 605 (9th Cir. 2016) - search & seizure SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 150

• Gilk v. Cunniffe, 655 F. 3d 78, 85 (1st Cir. 2011) - free speech • ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F. 3d 583, 595 (7th Cir. 2012) - free speech • Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F. 3d 436, 438 (9th Cir. 1995) - free speech • Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F. 3d 1332-1333 (11th Cir. 2000) - free speech

SPD RESPONSE

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS

APPENDIX

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2023 Search & Seizure #4

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 02/12/2024

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT

RETURNED TO SCPRC

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
RM 523.02 Search & Handcuff Manual
RM 526.01 Search Manual
GO 210.05 Biased-Based Policing
GO 210.09 Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) Compliance GO 523.06 Release under Section 849(B) PC
GO 526.01 Search & Seizures
GO 526.02 Investigative Detentions
GO 536.02 Recovered, Stored, Impounded and Asset Seized Motor Vehicles GO 550.06 Arrest Warrants

Rights of non-probation persons were violated during probation waiver searches.

Adopt a New General Order(s) : Establish a standalone, affirmative policy that clearly defines and articulates SPD's authority, procedures, and limits for conducting probation searches. The policy should use affirmative language that requires SPD personnel to notify probationers and bystanders of their rights when conducting probation searches or other form of warrantless searches. The policy should require SPD officers to report all incidents where probationers or non-probation bystanders are subject a search waiver or warrantless search, including why they initiated a search waiver, whether non- probationers were searched, and/or why they felt the need to search non-probationers in the vicinity.

The policy should include, but not be limited to:
i. Cleared, detailed descriptions of the rights of probationers subject to a search waiver, including the rights of non-probationer bystanders in the vicinity. ii. Cleared, detailed descriptions of the criteria and/or rationale for authorizing probation searchers, including the limits and technical aspects for conducting them.

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 151

iii. Clear, detailed descriptions of the processes for reclaiming seized property, contesting asset forfeitures, and requesting compensation for damaged or destroyed property. iv. Contact information and procedures for filing complaints to both SPD Internal Affairs and to the Office of Public Safety Accountability, including a clear outline of disciplinary actions for violating the policy.
v. Direct legal references to all State laws, City Codes, Reference Manuals or General Orders that govern this policy, with a written note for how this policy will be updated when new governing policies are adopted.
vi. Direct reference to all US court cases applicable to the following constitutional protections:
a. The Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable search and seizure, including cases relevant to police powers to conduct warrantless searches , and warrantless entries.
b. The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of the right of due process and just compensation, including cases relevant to police powers to conduct civil asset forfeitures.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Under Finding #4, OPSA determined SPD violated the rights of non-probationers (ie, civilians not under probation) during probation waiver searches, where it found multiple cases where police officers conducted a probation search of every room in a house or apartment, even those rooms that the probationer did not occupy or control. OPSA issued several with recommendations from Finding #4:
• SPD should develop a clear policy defining the rules and procedures for conducting probation searches. See Appendix A.
• SPD should implement continuous education and training for legal updates, probation search waivers, implicit bias, and community-oriented policing. • SPD should train officers to obtain search warrants whenever feasible and not rely so heavily on search waivers.

The Commission concurs with OPSA’s recommendations and provides the following recommendations for how the Department may remedy these findings and implement OPSA’s recommendations in alignment with the values of the community they serve. While the law stipulates that probationers sign over their Fourth Amendment rights upon entering probation, and there may be specific exceptions where warrantless searches of non-probationers are permitted, being “justified” to conduct an activity does not imply it is constitutional or ethical conduct, let alone morally justified. This pattern of unlawful conduct by SPD especially concerning in light of the multitude of research, Department-commissioned studies, and objective data that have consistently demonstrated a pattern of racial disparities and profiling of Black residents who have been found to be subject to searches over 6 times more often than any other demographic—even as they are consistently found to be less likely to possess contraband or illegal weapons compared with White residents.

As no general order or reference manual directly speaks to the procedure or limitations for conducting probation searches appears to be publicly available, the Commission recommends a standalone, affirmative policy that clearly defines and articulates SPD's authority, procedures, and limits for conducting probation searches and warrantless searches.

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 152

OPSA has provided at least two model policies from the San Francisco Police Department and Baltimore Police Department for SPD to reference as it creates this policy, which can be found in Appendix A of OPSA's audit. These sample policies include:
• San Francisco Adult Probation Department, Policy 3.08.03: Search and Seizure, effective 04/18/2018
• Baltimore Police Department, Policy 1109: Warrantless Searches, published 02/09/2021

The Commission also recommends the following court cases referenced in OPSA’s Audit be cited in any new general order or reference manual pertaining to probation searches or warrantless searches, as a good-faith demonstration showing that SPD recognizes the Fourth Amendment right against unlawful searches & seizures and the First Amendment right to record the police and/or other public officials:
• Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) - search & seizure • United States v. Lara, 815 F. 3d 605 (9th Cir. 2016) - search & seizure • Gilk v. Cunniffe, 655 F. 3d 78, 85 (1st Cir. 2011) - free speech • ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F. 3d 583, 595 (7th Cir. 2012) - free speech • Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F. 3d 436, 438 (9th Cir. 1995) - free speech • Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F. 3d 1332-1333 (11th Cir. 2000) - free speech • People v . Ovieda, 7 Cal. 5th (2019) – search & seizure

SPD RESPONSE

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS

APPENDIX
SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 153

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2023 Search & Seizure #5

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 02/12/2024

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT

RETURNED TO SCPRC

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
RM 523.02 Search & Handcuff Manual
RM 526.01 Search Manual
RM 526.03 Asset Forfeiture Manual
GO 523.06 Release under Section 849(B) PC
GO 526.01 Search & Seizures
GO 526.02 Investigative Detentions
GO 525.01 Evidence and Property
GO 536.02 Recovered, Stored, Impounded and Asset Seized Motor Vehicles GO 550.06 Arrest Warrants

SPD policies regarding Vehicle Tow Procedures are inconsistent and/or unlawful.

Changes to Existing Policy(s ): Require SPD to update and consolidate all existing procedures relevant to recovering, storing, impounding or seizing motor vehicles into a single, affirmative policy that clearly outlines and articulates SPD’s authority, procedures, and limits for towing motor vehicles, releasing personal property from seized vehicles and releasing vehicle owners or their passengers from police custody when their vehicles are being towed.

This policy should apply to all investigations given by assignment or self-initiated by SPD officers, and use language that unequivocally requires SPD officers to report all incidents where vehicles have been towed or been seized, including why they initiated the towing and whether the vehicle has been seized under asset forfeiture. When a vehicle is seized under asset forfeiture, this policy should unequivocally require officers to specify what criminal violations the vehicle or the personal property therein is suspected of being connected with in their reports.

This policy should include, but not be limited to:
i. Clear, detailed description of the factors, criteria and/or rationale for an officer to initiate the towing or impoundment of a motor vehicle.
ii. Clear, detailed description of the criteria and/or rationale for assessing or determining the connection of a vehicle, or the personal property therein, with a criminal violation. iii. Clear, detailed description of the processes for reclaiming an impounded vehicle and contesting a civil asset forfeiture.
iv. Contact information and procedures for filing complaints to both SPD Internal Affairs and to the Office of Public Safety Accountability, including a clear outline of disciplinary actions for violating the policy.
v. Direct legal references to all State laws, City Codes, Reference Manuals or General Orders that govern this policy, with a written note for how this policy will be updated when new governing policies are adopted.
vi. Direct reference to all US court cases applicable to the following constitutional protections:

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 154

a. The Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable search and seizure, including cases relevant to police powers to conduct warrantless searches , and warrantless entries.
b. The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of the right of due process and just compensation, including cases relevant to police powers to conduct civil asset forfeitures. c. The Eighth Amendment’s protection against excessive fines, including cases involving the proportionality of amounts forfeited with the severity of criminal offense.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Under Finding #5, OPSA determined that SPD’s inconsistencies in its Vehicle Tow Procedures were significant enough to warrant a finding due to concerns with the unlawful detainment of civilians when police officers are towing civilians’ vehicles. OPSA issued a recommendation that the Commission supports: SPD should establish a clear policy outlining towing procedures as well as procedures for releasing personal property from their respective vehicles and releasing citizens from police custody when their vehicles are being towed.

The Commission concurs with OPSA’s recommendations and provides the following recommendations for how the Department may remedy these findings and implement OPSA’s recommendations in alignment with the values of the community they serve. In the course of reviewing SPD’s policies concerning towing and impounding vehicles, it came to the Commission’s attention that the Department’s policy concerning Asset Seized vehicles is governed under an Asset Forfeiture Manual (RM 536.03)–a policy which is not currently published to the City’s website. Given the longstanding pattern of constitutional violations and inconsistencies related to vehicle towings, the Commission considers it necessary and appropriate for SPD to provide full transparency in how it handles community members’ assets, few being as essential as their motor vehicles.

The practice of civil asset forfeiture is highly controversial, and the lack of transparency for SPD’s rules, manner and scope of conducting this practice carries deeper implications in light the Department’s pattern of Fourth Amendment violations carries deeper implications beyond inconsistent vehicle towing.

Despite the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of our right to due process, which includes providing notice and a hearing before the government takes a person’s property, the asset forfeiture process does not require a judicial hearing to determine whether the property seized is genuinely connected to criminal activity and requires the property owner to file a third-party claim where the owner must prove, with evidence, that the seized property was not used in connection with a crime. Even if the owner is “innocent,” police may still seize that property if they claim a third party illegally used it and lay the burden of proof upon the “innocent owner” to prove they had no knowledge of the criminal activity involving the property.

While SPD and the US Department of Justice may claim asset forfeiture as a tool for “depriving criminals from accessing assets and proceeds generated by illegal activities, there remain valid concerns among community members, civil rights attorneys and even other law enforcement experts who consider civil asset forfeiture as a “policing for profit” system that allows police agencies to seize property based on their “reasonable suspicion” of its involvement in a crime and forfeiting that property without ever charging its owner with a crime. This perception is not relieved by the fact that SPD appears to plans on SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 155

asset forfeiture revenues to supplement its record-setting annual budgets, receiving as much as $609,987 since in FY2022/23 asset forfeiture revenues per its Asset Forfeiture Expenditure Master Plan.

In lieu of any future updates to SPD’s asset forfeiture policies, the Commission recommends SPD consolidate and update all existing policies and procedures relevant to towing, impounding, or otherwise seizing motor vehicles under asset forfeiture into a single, affirmative policy. Whether this is consolidated under a new GO or an existing one we leave to the Department, it is recommended that any policy updates require SPD officers to report why they initiate vehicle tows in the first place, whether the vehicle has been seized under asset forfeiture, and specify what criminal violations they suspect warrants the vehicle’s forfeiture.

SPD RESPONSE

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS

APPENDIX

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2023 Search & Seizure #6

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 02/12/2024

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT

RETURNED TO SCPRC

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SPD does not have a policy regarding handcuffing minor children.

Adopt a New General Order(s): Establish a standalone, affirmative policy that that clearly defines and articulates SPD's authority, procedures, and limits for engaging youth, juveniles or children under the age of 18 years. The policy should explicitly recognize youth or minors as a protected class of people. The policy should include a zero-tolerance code of conduct that requires SPD personnel to ensure the rights, dignity and well-being of such protected persons are respected and ensured in the performance of their duties.

The policy should include, but not be limited to:
i. Clear definitions for “youth,” “infant,” “child,” “adolescent,” and “child” alongside relevant definitions that articulate the difference between “minors” and “juveniles,” distinguish between “neurotypical” and “neurodivergent” behaviors most commonly experienced by youth in development, and the nuances in their identities.

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 156

ii. Clear, detailed procedures and tactics for de-escalation during police encounters with juveniles, including a requirement to exhaust such tactics before deadly force is authorized. iii. Clear, detailed rules, procedures and limits for searching, transporting, detaining, arresting, and/or handcuffing any juvenile under the age of 18, including a zero-tolerance policy that requires police officers to:
a. Report all incidents all incidents where a juvenile under 18 has been detained, searched or handcuffed, including clearly articulating in their reports why the officer detained or arrested the juvenile and/or why they felt the need to search or place them in handcuffs.
b. Proactively notify the parent or guardian of any juvenile being detained or under arrest as soon as possible.
c. Prohibit the questioning or interrogation of any juvenile without the presence of their parent or guardian and their court-appointed attorney, regardless of exigent circumstances.
d. Prohibit the handcuffing of minors or juveniles under the age of 14 for all but the 5 most serious violent offenses applicable under Section 602(b) of the Welfare and Institutions Code, or when the juvenile is exhibiting active violence that immediately risks grievous harm towards themselves or other civilians.
iv. Contact information and procedures for filing complaints to both SPD Internal Affairs and to the Office of Public Safety Accountability, including a clear outline of disciplinary actions for officers who violate this policy, including termination. v. Direct legal references to any State laws, City Codes, Reference Manuals or General Orders governing this policy or relevant to its enforcement, with a written note for updating this section when corresponding policies are adopted.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Under Finding #6, OPSA found at least one incident significant enough to warrant its own finding (Finding #6) and to share it publicly with City Council. The incident involved a ten-year-old African American female child who was scared and crying in her pajamas after being handcuffed and reprimanded by an SPD officer. The female child turned off the lights inside her home and failed to open the door fast enough for the officer. The female child was clearly not a threat to officers but was still handcuffed immediately upon opening the door of her home. Although the child in this case was not handcuffed for a long period of time, this incident was obviously traumatic to the child and will certainly shape her view of police officers in the future. OPSA issued the following recommendation:
• SPD must have a policy outlining procedures in dealing with minor children would be beneficial to officers and lead to less traumatized children in the future. • SPD should receive continuous education and training on implicit bias.

The Commission concurs with OPSA’s recommendations. While such a common-sense recommendation should speak for itself, the Department’s response to OPSA’s Finding #6 and Chief Lester’s subsequent attempts to defend their officers’ conduct and excuse the clear and present racial bias in this incident left Commissioners with little to no faith that Department leadership is committed to making good-faith efforts to change its culture or the policies derived from it that would allow an adult in uniform to treat a SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 157

child to dishonorable and unbecoming conduct. The Commission would recommend disciplinary action for all officers involved in this incident, including termination and decertification for the lead officer, but we currently have no authority to advise on personnel decisions that lie with the City Manager. Instead, we will issue this clear, detailed recommendation for engaging with youth that includes zero-tolerance policy in the hopes that SPD leadership and their officers will never stand for such incidents ever again.

OPSA has provided at least four model policies for SPD to reference as it creates this policy, which can be found in Appendix F of OPSA's audit. The Commission recommends these model policies serve as the floor for the Department’s policy drafting, and not the ceiling. Those policies include:
• San Jose Police Department, Duty Manual Section L3301.5: Handcuffing Juveniles, effective 10/30/2020
• Saratoga Springs Police Department, Policy 901: Temporary Custody of Juveniles, effective 05/11/2022
• San Francisco Police Department, General Order 7.01: Policies and Procedures for Juveniles Detention, Arrest, and Custody, effective 05/07/2008
• Baltimore Police Department, Policy 1202: Interactions with Youth, effective 12/14/2022

SPD RESPONSE

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS

APPENDIX

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 158

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2023 Search & Seizure #7

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 02/12/2024

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT

RETURNED TO SCPRC

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SPD does not have a policy regarding engaging, detaining or handcuffing expecting mothers and other people experiencing pregnancy.

Adopt a New General Order(s): Establish a standalone, affirmative policy that that clearly defines and articulates SPD's authority, procedures, and limits for engaging pregnant persons. The policy should explicitly recognize pregnant persons as a protected class. The policy should include a zero-tolerance code of conduct that requires SPD personnel to ensure the rights, dignity and well-being of such protected persons are respected and ensured in the performance of their duties.

The policy should include, but not be limited to:
i. Clear definitions for “pregnant persons,” alongside relevant definitions that articulates the different stages of pregnancy, acknowledges the non-femme and nonbinary identities for people experiencing pregnancy, and articulates the most common conditions or complications experienced during pregnancy, including a requirement to exhaust such tactics before deadly force is authorized.
ii. Clear, detailed procedures and tactics for de-escalation during police encounters with pregnant persons, including a requirement to exhaust such tactics before deadly force is authorized.
iii. Clear, detailed rules, procedures and limits for searching, transporting, detaining, arresting, and/or handcuffing a pregnant person, including a zero-tolerance policy that requires police officers to:
a. Report all incidents all incidents where officers have detained, searched or handcuffed a pregnant person, including clearly articulating in their reports why the officer detained or arrested the pregnant person and/or why they felt the need to search or place them in handcuffs.
b. Proactively ask and seek accommodations for any pregnant person being detained or under arrest, including allowing them to sit in a comfort position. c. Immediately seek medical attention for any pregnant person undergoing labor in the course of being stopped, searched, detained or arrested without exception.

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 159

d. Prohibit the handcuffing of any pregnant person experiencing the late stages of pregnancy for any non-violent offense or violent criminal offense less than a first-class felony. No pregnant person actively undergoing childbirth should be handcuffed for any reason.
e. Treat an unborn child as a minor and consider their life and viability within the totality of circumstances when weighing use of force options.
ii. Contact information and procedures for filing complaints to both SPD Internal Affairs and to the Office of Public Safety Accountability, including a clear outline of disciplinary actions for officers who violate this policy, including termination. iv. Direct legal references to all State laws, City Codes, Reference Manuals or General Orders governing this policy or relevant to its enforcement, with a written note for updating this section when corresponding policies are adopted

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Similar to OPSA’s recommendations under Finding #6, this recommendation speaks for itself. The Commission found no publicly available General Order or Reference Manual that explicitly outlines SPD policy or procedures for dealing with pregnant persons. If such a policy exists within the Department, it should be made publicly available (without redactions) immediately. If it does not exist, the Commission recommends a standalone affirmative policy for interacting with pregnant people that includes zero- tolerance policy as a proactive measure for the City to ensure its police officers are ensure such civilians’ rights, dignity and well-being are respected and protected in every interaction with police.

SPD RESPONSE

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS

APPENDIX

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 160

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2023 Search & Seizure #8

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 02/12/2024

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT

RETURNED TO SCPRC

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SPD does not have a policy regarding engaging, detaining or handcuffing people with disabilities.

Adopt a New General Order(s): Establish a standalone, affirmative policy that that clearly defines and articulates SPD's authority, procedures, and limits for engaging disabled persons. The policy should explicitly recognize disabled persons as a protected class. The policy should include a zero-tolerance code of conduct that requires SPD personnel to ensure the rights, dignity and well-being of such protected persons are respected and ensured in the performance of their duties.

The policy should include, but not be limited to:
v. Clear definitions for “disabled persons” alongside relevant definitions that articulate the common health conditions affecting sensory abilities, communication, and mobility that may impact a person’s ability to comply with lawful orders or procedures commanded from a police officer.
vi. Clear, detailed procedures and tactics for de-escalation during police encounters with disabled persons, including a requirement to exhaust such tactics before deadly force is authorized.
vii. Clear, detailed procedures and limits for searching, transporting, detaining, arresting, and/or handcuffing a disabled person, including a zero-tolerance policy that requires police officers to:
a. Report all incidents where officers have detained, searched or handcuffed a disabled person, including clearly articulating in their reports why the officer detained or arrested the disabled person and/or why they felt the need to search or place them in handcuffs. b. Proactively ask and seek accommodations for any disabled person being detained or under arrest.
c. Immediately seek medical assistance for any disabled person being detained or under arrest in the absence of verbal communication, if they are medically unable to give informed consent, or upon request.
d. Prohibit the handcuffing of any disabled person incapable of walking under their own power, for any non-violent offense, or for any violent offense less than a second-class felony.

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 161

e. Prohibit the use of less lethal weapons against a disabled person with limited mobility who is unarmed, or the use of deadly force against such person wielding anything less than a firearm.
viii. Contact information and procedures for filing complaints to both SPD Internal Affairs and to the Office of Public Safety Accountability, including a clear outline of disciplinary actions for officers who violate this policy, including termination. ix. Direct legal references to any State laws, City Codes, Reference Manuals or General Orders governing this policy or relevant to its enforcement, with a written note for updating this section when corresponding policies are adopted.

If such a policy exists within the Department, it should be made publicly available (without redactions) immediately. If it does not exist, the Commission recommends a standalone affirmative policy for interacting with disabled people that includes zero-tolerance policy as a proactive measure for the City to ensure its police officers are ensure such civilians’ rights, dignity and well-being are respected and protected in every interaction with police.

SPD RESPONSE

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS

APPENDIX

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 162

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2023 Search & Seizure #9

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 02/12/2024

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT

RETURNED TO SCPRC

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
RM 523.02 Search & Handcuff Manual
RM 526.01 Search Manual
GO 210.05 Biased-Based Policing
GO 526.01 Search & Seizures
GO 526.02 Investigative Detentions
GO 550.06 Arrest Warrants

Warrantless entry into residential homes and conducting searches without sufficient legal authority.

Adopt a New General Order(s): Establish a standalone, affirmative policy that clearly defines and articulates SPD's authority, procedures, and limits for performing welfare checks, warrantless entry and conducting warrantless searches of private property. The policy should apply to all investigations given by assignment or self-initiated by SPD officers, and use affirmative language that unequivocally requires SPD officers to report all incidents where a welfare check, warrantless entry or search of a private residence was conducted, including why they felt a welfare check or warrantless entry was necessary, and why they felt the need to conduct a search without a warrant.

The policy should include, but not be limited to:
i. Clear, detailed descriptions for the criteria and/or rationale for authorizing a welfare check, including the limits and technical aspects for conducting warrantless entries or searches of a person’s home or residence.
x. Clear, detailed descriptions of the processes for reclaiming seized property, contesting asset forfeitures, and requesting compensation for damaged or destroyed property. xi. Contact information and procedures for filing complaints to both SPD Internal Affairs and to the Office of Public Safety Accountability, including a clear outline of disciplinary actions for officers who violate this policy.
ii. Direct legal references to all State laws, City Codes, Reference Manuals and General Orders governing this policy or relevant to its enforcement, with a written note for updating this section when corresponding policies are adopted.
iii. Direct reference to all US court cases applicable to the following constitutional protections:
a. The Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable search and seizure, including cases relevant to the powers of police to conduct warrantless searches and warrantless entries.
b. The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of the right of due process and just compensation, including cases relevant to police powers to conduct civil asset forfeitures. c. The First Amendment’s protections for free speech, including cases affirming the right to record police officers and other public officials.

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 163

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Under Finding #7, OPSA determined that SPD does not have a policy for warrantless entry into homes, where it found that SPD officers still make warrantless entry into citizens’ homes under the so-called 'Community Care Taking Doctrine' of welfare checks that the California Supreme Court abolished in its 2019 ruling in People v . Ovieda. In that case, the court ruled that police officers cannot make warrantless entries and searches into a person’s home under the theory of community care taking or under the mere possibility of exigent circumstances. The court held that officers must perceive actual exigent circumstances before finding that “warrantless home entry is unreasonable unless it falls within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement, like exigent circumstances, which includes the need to render emergency aid.” OPSA issued a specific recommendation: SPD should develop a policy for conducting welfare checks that encompasses warrantless entry into citizen’s homes. A sample policy from the Baltimore Police Department can be found in Appendix B.

The Commission concurs with OPSA’s recommendations and provides the following recommendations for how the Department may remedy these findings and implement OPSA’s recommendations in alignment with the values of the community they serve. The Commission can corroborate based on testimony and public statements from local community groups, concerned residents and news media calling attention to numerous instances of SPD officers breaking down doors to the wrong homes in conducting welfare checks or suspect searches and leaving community residents' property damaged.

No matter what exigent circumstances SPD may claim necessitates such searches, there is no ethical or moral excuse for allowing police officers to forcibly enter residents’ homes with impunity or violate essential human rights in the name of public safety. And while some circumstances may require police officers to gain entry into people’s homes, the numerous complaints found by OPSA demonstrate a pattern of unjustifiable conduct that requires clear and detailed policies, procedures, and restrictions for wielding such authority in order to protect civilians from abuse by bad actors and to protect police officers who put themselves at risk of preventable conflicts or deadly altercations that may result in costly liability claims to the city, or worse, grievous harm or loss of life to themselves and innocent civilians.

OPSA has provided Baltimore Police Department’s Policy 1109: Warrantless Searches as a model policy for SPD to reference as it creates this policy, which can be found in Appendix E of OPSA's audit. The Commission recommends these model policies serve as the floor for the Department’s policy drafting, and not the ceiling.

The Commission also recommends the following court cases referenced in OPSA’s Audit be cited in any new general order or reference manual pertaining to probation searches or warrantless searches to show that SPD recognizes the Fourth Amendment right against unlawful searches & seizures and the First Amendment right to record the police and/or other public officials:
• Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) - search & seizure • United States v. Lara, 815 F. 3d 605 (9th Cir. 2016) - search & seizure • Gilk v. Cunniffe, 655 F. 3d 78, 85 (1st Cir. 2011) - free speech • ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F. 3d 583, 595 (7th Cir. 2012) - free speech SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 164

• Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F. 3d 436, 438 (9th Cir. 1995) - free speech • Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F. 3d 1332-1333 (11th Cir. 2000) - free speech • People v . Ovieda, 7 Cal. 5th (2019) – search & seizure

SPD RESPONSE

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS

APPENDIX

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 165

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2023 Search & Seizure #10

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 02/12/2024

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT

RETURNED TO SCPRC

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
RM 523.02 Search & Handcuff Manual
RM 526.01 Search Manual
GO 210.05 Biased-Based Policing
GO 210.09 Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) Compliance GO 370.02 Concealed Weapons Permit
GO 380.04 Retired Officers' Concealed Weapons Endorsement GO 526.01 Search & Seizures
GO 526.02 Investigative Detentions
GO 580.02 Use of Force
GO 580.03 Use of Force Reporting, Investigations, and Response

SPD does not have a policy regarding officers interacting with citizens holding a concealed carry weapon (CCW) license.

Adopt a New General Order(s) : E stablish a standalone, affirmative policy that clearly outlines and articulates SPD procedures for interacting with people who have a concealed weapon license and carrying their weapon at the time of the interaction. This policy should consider all instances of SPD officers drawing their weapons against civilians during an encounter as a reportable Use of Force (UOF).

This policy should apply to all investigations given by assignment or self-initiated by SPD officers, and use affirmative language that requires SPD officers to report all incidents involving a CCW or other licensed firearm holder where officers draw their firearms during interactions with licensed firearm holders, including why they stopped the person and/or why they felt the need to draw their weapon.

The policy should include, but not be limited to:
i. Clear, detailed descriptions of the criteria and/or rationale for initiating investigative detentions of a CCW license holder or other legally-registered firearm holder, including the limits and technical aspects for using shows of force or detaining them. ii. Contact information and procedures for filing complaints to both SPD Internal Affairs and to the Office of Public Safety Accountability, including a clear outline of disciplinary actions for officers who violate this policy.
iii. Direct legal references to any State laws, City Codes, Reference Manuals or General Orders governing this policy or relevant to its enforcement, with a written note for updating this section when corresponding policies are adopted
iv. Direct reference to all US court cases applicable to the following constitutional protections:
a. The Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to bear arms, including cases relevant to police powers to seize firearms.
b. The Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable search and seizure, including cases relevant to police powers to conduct warrantless searches and warrantless entries.

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 166

c. The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of the right of due process and just compensation, including cases relevant to police powers to conduct civil asset forfeitures.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Under Finding #8, OPSA found at least one instance of an SPD officer escalating a pretextual traffic stop for a tinted windows violation when a driver who lawfully notified the officer that he had a concealed cary weapon license and that he was carrying his weapon on his side. The officer immediately took out her weapon, held the driver at gunpoint in the low ready position, and called for backup. Several officers responded to the scene and tactically ordered the driver out of his vehicle. The officers took his firearm, handcuffed him, and sat him on the ground. Throughout the interaction the driver was calm and cooperative. Several officers remained on scene while the driver’s information was checked and CCW permit verified. The officers released the driver once they were finished with the records check. OPSA issued the following recommendation: SPD should develop a policy for police interactions with citizens who have a CCW license and carrying their weapon at the time of the interaction.

The Commission concurs with OPSA’s recommendations and provides the following recommendations for how the Department may remedy these findings and implement OPSA’s recommendations in alignment with the values of the community they serve. Even as OPSA found only one instance of this occurring during its Audit, the Commission can’t help but imagine this to happen more often than is being reported given the numerous other complaints against SPD reported by OPSA and public testimony and statements from community members who allege dangerous escalations and shows of force by SPD officers. Such encounters bring to mind the case of Philando Castille, a Black man who was killed by Minneapolis Police officers during a routine traffic stop after lawfully identifying himself as a legal firearm holder.

As more citizens obtain CCW permits and police interactions with CCW holders become more prevalent, it is critical for SPD to establish clear guidelines and tactically sound training protocols for mitigating unnecessary escalations and uses of force against legal firearm holders.

SPD RESPONSE

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS

APPENDIX

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 167

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2023 Search & Seizure #11

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 02/12/2024

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT

RETURNED TO SCPRC

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

Stops based on minor traffic infractions such as improper window tint with no apparent intention to enforce the vehicle code or ticket the driver amount to pretextual stops.

Adopt a New Reference Manual(s): Establish a standalone, affirmative policy governing SPD’s traffic enforcement policies, practices, and procedures. This policy should clearly articulate SPD’s authority, procedures, and limits for conducting traffic stops, vehicle searches, or other investigatory practices involving motorists or their vehicles.

This policy should use affirmative language that unequivocally prohibits the use of pretextual stops within the City of Sacramento.

This should apply to all investigations given by assignment or self-initiated by SPD officers, using affirmative language that unequivocally requires SPD officers to clearly articulate in their reports why they initiated a traffic stop, whether a search was conducted or the driver was handcuffed, and why they felt the need to detain and/or handcuff the motorist.

This policy should including but not be limited to:
i. Verbatim language of the US Constitution's Fourth Amendment at the top of the policy. ii. Clear, detailed descriptions of SPD's rules, procedures and limits for conducting traffic safety enforcements of motor vehicles, including the criteria, factors, and/or technical aspects of initiating a traffic stop.
iii. Clear, detailed description of the criteria, factors, and/or technical aspects of conducting field sobriety tests, consent searches, investigatory stops, and investigative detentions of a driver, passenger, or their vehicle. This includes the manner, scope, and technical aspects for initiating searches and seizures, when and how detainees may be handcuffed, and their differences from other shows of force.
iv. Clear, detailed description of the criteria, factors, and/or rationale for an officer to initiate vehicle towing, impoundment, or asset forfeiture.
v. Clear, detailed description of the processes for reclaiming an impounded vehicle, contesting asset forfeitures, and requesting compensation for damaged or destroyed property. This SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 168

includes contact information and the process for filing complaints to SPD Internal Affairs and the Office of Public Safety Accountability.
vi. Clear, detailed description of SPD’s disciplinary matrix for misconduct involving improper searches or seizures, including an outline of disciplinary actions up to, but not limited to, termination.
vii. Direct legal references to all State laws, City Codes, Reference Manuals or General Orders that govern this policy, with a written note for how this policy will be updated when new governing policies are adopted.
viii. Direct reference to all US court cases applicable to the following constitutional protections:
a. The Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable search and seizure, including cases relevant to the powers of police to conduct warrantless searches and warrantless entries.
b. The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of the right of due process and just compensation, including cases relevant to police powers to conduct civil asset forfeitures. c. The First Amendment’s protections for free speech, including cases affirming the right to record police officers and other public officials.
d. The Eighth Amendment’s protection against excessive fines, including cases involving the proportionality of amounts forfeited with the severity of criminal offense.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Under Finding #8, OPSA determined that more than half of the complaints received during the review period regarding improper search and seizure stemmed from traffic stops. In many instances, the Fourth Amendment is violated when these "window tint" traffic stops get needlessly prolonged. In a 2015 decision, Rodriguez v. US, the Supreme Court ruled that when a traffic violation is the purpose of a stop, the stop “may last no longer than is necessary to effectuate th[at] purpose”. The traffic stop can become unlawful if it is unnecessarily prolonged for an unrelated matter that has nothing to do with the purpose of the stop, even if an officer’s initial traffic stop of the citizen was lawful. OPSA issued the following recommendations:
• SPD should eliminate the practice of pretextual stops or set clear restrictions on conducting pretextual stops.
• SPD should develop a policy for traffic stops.

The Commission concurs with OPSA’s recommendations and provides the following recommendations for how the Department may remedy these findings and implement OPSA’s recommendations in alignment with the values of the community they serve. It came as no surprise for Commissioners that every complaint regarding SPD conduct of traffic stops were filed by Black or Latino drivers. On average, traffic stops in California involve 40% Latino drivers, 33% white drivers, and 14% Black drivers. While most stops involve verbal communication, thousands result in searches (37,400 stops), detentions (35,700), or handcuffing (15,000). In some cases, officers aim or use weapons during traffic stops that do not lead to enforcement or discovery. Although Black Californians represent only 6% of the state's population, recent studies and RIPA reports continue to show they are over-represented in traffic stops, with both Black and Latino drivers being more likely to experience intrusive actions during these stops than white drivers.

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 169

This is consistent with the findings of at least 3 separate studies of SPD traffic enforcement practices since 2001, which have served as the impetus for forming the original iterations of this Commission in the first place. Despite Black Sacramentans comprising less than 14% of the city population, SPD traffic stops have consistently targeted Black motorists more than any other demographic. The most detailed picture we have to date being the 2021 Center for Policing Equity Report (which SPD requested) which found that SPD has not only continued to target Black motorists for traffic stops at the highest rates compared with other motorists (38% of all traffic stops in 2019), but that once stopped, Black motorists were subjected to searches 3x more often than White motorists despite being less likely to possess weapons, drugs, or stolen contraband than White people.

Whether pretextual stops (aka, “Terry Stops”) are legal under the Fourth Amendment is not as important as how effective they are at promoting public safety, or better yet, preventing crime. When performed without restrictions, pretext stops serve to deteriorate the already-strained relationships the Department has with the community it serves. Countless objective analyses have found pretextual stops are extremely subjective in their enforcement, which is corroborated by CPE study which found that out of 36,716 traffic stops in 2019, SPD officers issued a warning or performed no action in 75% of the 13,856 stops involving Black motorists and 64% of 8,404 stops involving Latino motorists, compared with 60% of 10,627 stops involving White motorists (24,529 stops in total). Only 11,187 stops resulted in a citation and 993 stops resulted in arrests, with Black and Latino people experiencing the highest rates of arrest compared to White people. The persistent use of window tinting as the pretext for traffic stops, which OPSA found that officers did not investigate or question drivers about in most cases it reviewed, only contribute to the prevalent perception that police officers are dishonest, discourtesy, and overall disrespectful to members of the public, especially when they are Black or Latino.

Until such time as the Department chooses to engage in good-faith efforts to show objective research and data to justify pretextual stops as an effective tool for law enforcement, the Commission will recommend the City Council to eliminate pretextual stops within SPD’s jurisdiction and require the Department to create publicly-available rules and procedures for conducting traffic enforcement duties.

OPSA has provided at least two model policies from the San Francisco Police Department and Tampa Police Department for SPD to reference as it creates this policy, which can be found in Appendix A and D of OPSA's audit. The Commission recommends these model policies serve as the floor for the Department’s policy drafting, and not the ceiling. The sample policies include:
• San Francisco Police Department, General Order 9.07: Curtailing the Use of Pretext Stops, effective 1/11/2023
• Tampa Police Department, SOP 635: Traffic Deployment Responsibility and Traffic Enforcement Guidelines, effective 06/2022

The Commission also recommends the following court cases referenced in OPSA’s Audit be cited in any new policy pertaining to traffic enforcement as a good-faith demonstration showing the SPD recognizes the Fourth Amendment right against unlawful searches & seizures:
• Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
• Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977)
• Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009)
• Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009)
• Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011)
SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 170

• United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)
• Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014)
• Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015)
• Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. ____, [138 S. Ct. 2206] (2018) • People v Fews, 27 Cal.App.5th 553 (2018)
• U.S. v. Landeros. 913 F.3d 862 (9th Cir. 2019)
• Caniglia v. Strom, 593 U.S. ____, [141 S. Ct. 1596] (2021)

SPD RESPONSE

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS

APPENDIX

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 171

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2023 Search & Seizure #12

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 02/12/2024

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT

RETURNED TO SCPRC

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
RM 220.01 Internal Investigations Manual
GO 220.01 Personnel Complaints
GO 220.05 Disciplinary Actions

Internal reviews by supervisors do not consistently identify Fourth Amendment violations.

Changes to Existing Policy(s) and/or City Code(s): Separate the Internal Affairs Division from the Sacramento Police Department and reorganize it to operate as a civilian-led division under the Office of Public Safety Accountability for the purposes of independent oversight of officer-

Establish a clear outline of procedures and zero-tolerance code of conduct for SPD supervising personnel to investigate all police misconduct complaint cases within an employee’s assigned division. The policy should include, but not be limited to:
i. Clear, affirmative language requiring SPD supervisors to conduct complaint investigations impartially, including clear, detailed procedures for how to ensure the most accurate findings.
ii. Requirement for SPD supervisors and Internal Affairs Division personnel to turn over all documents and materials related to a misconduct complaint case to the Office of Public Safety Accountability for review and clearance before the case may be closed and any disciplinary action taken.
iii. Clear, detailed description of SPD’s disciplinary matrix for police misconduct, including improper or biased investigations by supervising personnel and an outline of disciplinary actions, but not limited to, termination.
iv. Clear, detailed description of Contact information and the process for filing complaints to SPD Internal Affairs and the Office of Public Safety Accountability.

The policy should require continuous, mandatory supplemental search and seizure training from the Sacramento Assistant District Attorney Office for all SPD personnel, including SPD leadership. It should also require continuous, mandatory cultural sensitivity training, fair and impartial policing training, implicit bias training, and constitutional policing training for all SPD personnel, including SPD leadership.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Under Finding #10, OPSA found multiple examples of allegations of improper search and seizure that progressed through several levels of SPD supervision without recognition of Fourth amendment violations. OPSA issued several recommendations:
• SPD misconduct complaint cases investigated by the Internal Affairs Division as well as misconduct complaint cases investigated by supervising personnel within an employee’s assigned division must be investigated impartially and thoroughly to ensure the most accurate findings.

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 172

• SPD leadership team received supplemental search and seizure training on January 24, 2023, from the Sacramento Assistant District Attorney Office. Sacramento Assistant District Attorney advised that supplemental training would be developed specifically for officers. All SPD officers should be mandated to attend this supplemental training. • Police officers as well as SPD leadership should take cultural sensitivity training, fair and impartial policing training, implicit bias training, and constitutional policing training.

The Commission concurs with OPSA’s recommendations, but also provides the following recommendations for how the Department may remedy these findings and implement OPSA’s recommendations in alignment with the values of the community they serve. The public has long called for greater accountability and independent oversight of the Department, and the numerous examples highlighted by OPSA’s Audit, in addition to the pattern of sustained findings in its complaint activity reports, leaves the Commission to believe SPD cannot be trusted to hold itself accountable under its current culture and leadership.

In one example from OPSA’s Audit, a citizen was alleged to have been in possession of a handgun.

However, the officer can be heard on the body worn camera footage saying, "It was somebody in white, I can’t tell you who it was though - probably this guy [points to a guy in a white shirt sitting near him]".

The officer then arrested this individual for being in possession of a handgun without knowing whether he had the firearm or not. A misconduct complaint was filed alleging the arrest was made without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment. This complaint was reviewed by the area captain, and it was deemed unfounded. The OPSA Director and the IG met with the reviewing captain who admitted to not fully reviewing the entire case. The arrested citizen sued the city, and the matter was settled out of court. It is OPSA’s opinion that this matter might have been avoided had the officer been better trained on fundamental Fourth Amendment laws and had the SPD supervisors fully reviewed the unlawful arrest during the initial review of the citizen’s complaint.

In another example, Gang Enforcement Team officers detained and conducted a search of a citizen without apparent reasonable suspicion of criminal wrongdoing other than the fact that he was wearing a satchel. The reviewing lieutenant believed the interaction was consensual and submitted another case to the IG for review between the same officers and the same citizen that occurred two weeks prior. The second case was more egregious. Three Gang Enforcement Team officers tactically surrounded the citizen as soon as he parked his car in a parking lot. The officers observed no vehicle code or any other violations before detaining him. After a short exchange where the officers questioned him about the clothes he was wearing, the citizen asked, "Can I go finish out my day?" The officer responded in the negative. Since the officer denied his request to leave the interaction, this was a detainment or seizure that the Fourth Amendment requires the officers to have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

However, when the citizen filed a complaint alleging the Fourth Amendment violation, it was reviewed internally by a captain and deputy chief who found there was no wrongdoing by officers because it deemed a consensual encounter outside of the reach of the Fourth Amendment, not a detainment. The case progressed through every rank up to the Chief of Police before it was finally sent back for further review. In both interactions, the police officers clearly did not have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the detainment of the citizen. Routine training on investigatory stops, shows of force, and consensual encounters would have likely prevented this citizen from having his Fourth Amendment rights violated.

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 173

SPD officers arrived at a local barbershop due to suspicion that one of the barbers who worked in the shop was in violation of his probation terms. The officers stopped the suspected barber outside of the business. Then ten SPD officers ascended into the barbershop to conduct a probation search, stopped the normal business, and detained all the customers and employees. The officers then searched everyone in the shop, searched the entire shop, and refused to allow anyone to enter or leave the establishment. This detainment lasted over an hour without any reasonable suspicion that the customers and employees were involved in any criminal activity. This matter went through multiple review channels, including the Chief of Police each finding that the customers and employees consented to the encounter. No one in SPD management identified any issues with the search or detainment of these citizens even though there was a United States Supreme Court decision that clearly prohibited these types of detainments and searches against citizens. Moreover, no one in SPD leadership had any issues with how the employees, or customers were treated throughout the interaction when the discourtesy behaviors were pointed out by OPSA oversight practitioners.

SPD RESPONSE

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS

APPENDIX

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 174

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2023 Accountability & Organizational Culture #1

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 02/12/2024

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT

RETURNED TO SCPRC

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
SPD policies and procedures lack independent oversight or civilian review before they are activated.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): Require SPD to submit a new General Order, Reference Manual, or other significant update to the Department’s policies, procedures, or practices to the Sacramento Community Police Review Commission for review and evaluation upon approval by the Office of the Chief before it is activated. Reviews by the Commission should be limited to policies and procedures relevant to community relations, hiring, and training best practices. The Department should allow up to 45 days for the Commission to review and provide a written response for City Council.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE

SPD RESPONSE

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS

APPENDIX

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 175

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2023 Accountability & Organizational Culture #2

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 02/12/2024

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT

RETURNED TO SCPRC

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
How SPD distinguishes policy from procedural manuals is vague or unclear, with several policies missing or heavily redacted.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): Require SPD to update its Policy and Procedures webpage to list all General Orders and Reference Manuals relevant to:
• Department Structure (Section 100)
• Labor and Human Resources (Section 200)
• Policy Interactions and Computer Usage (Section 300)
• Department Equipment (Section 400)
• Operational Procedures (Section 500)

The Policy and Procedure webpage should clearly articulate the distinction between Department policy, procedural manuals, and their interactions in the Department’s day-to-day operations and actions. For General Orders or Reference Manuals considered exempt from disclosure under Government Code section 7923.600(a), the Department should be required to list the Section Number and Title within the appropriate sections without publishing the document.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
During its 2023 Audit, OPSA found it unclear how SPD distinguishes a manual from a policy, which has also been difficult for some Commissioners over the years. While we appreciate the Department's public statements that its Professional Standards Unit is in the process of updating its Search Manual (RM 526.01) from 2007 and reviewing the model policies provided by OPSA, it is worth noting that this policy has never been published publicly on the City’s website or been shared with the SCPRC for review prior to this Audit. Additionally, the Commission noticed several unpublished General Orders and Reference Manuals missing from the Deparment’s Policies and Procedures page:
• RM 526.01 Search Manual
• RM 526.03 Asset Forfeiture Manual
• RM 532.08 Critical Incident Manual
• GO 526.01 Search & Seizures
• GO 570.04 Peer Support Program
• GO 532.13 After Action/Debriefing Reports
• GO 560.01 Arrest and Investigation by Allied Agenciess While there may be circumstances when the Department may need to redact certain information to prevent jeopardizing officer safety, the Commission believes all GOs and RMs considered policy by the Department should be listed on the City’s Website as a public agency, even if City Council or the State Legislature deems such policies may not be available for public download.

SPD RESPONSE
SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 176

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS

APPENDIX

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 177

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2023 Accountability & Organizational Culture #3

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 02/12/2024

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT

RETURNED TO SCPRC

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
SPD policies and procedures

Changes to Existing Policy(s): Require SPD to remove redactions from General Orders and Reference Manuals relevant to its Department Structure, Policy Interactions, and Operational Procedures, including but not limited to:
i. Use of Force
ii. Search and Seizure
iii. Surveillance, including Body-Wor n / I n-Car Cameras , Police Observational Devices, and Automated License Plate Readers
iv. Foot and Vehicle Pursuits
v. Asset Forfeitures
vi. Traffic Enforcement
vii. Disciplinary Policy
viii. Internal Investigations.

For policies containing redactions of personally identifiable information and/or sensitive information relevant to the Safety of SPD officers under Government Code section 7922.000, the policy should include a foreword explaining the why the Department considers it necessary to redact the information and/or how it might jeopardize the officer safety.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
There have been multiple instances of redactions in SPD’s GOs or RMs that provide little to no explanation, which makes it difficult for the Department to have independent civilian oversight of its policies, procedures and practices. For example, SPD’s Search and Handcuff Manual (RM 523.02)—the only published policy concerning SPD’s search practices—contains redactions on 13 out 14 pages, including 4 pages that are entirely redacted as recently as October 2023. As a public agency intended to serve community residents, any redactions to SPD policies relevant to its community relations and interactions deserve an explanation as to why.

SPD RESPONSE

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS

APPENDIX

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 178

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2023 MEU Community Recommendation #1

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 02/12/2024

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT

RETURNED TO SCPRC

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use

SPD does not include in its reporting when military equipment is deployed.

Amend GO 410.06(D): Require SPD to track and report the total number of military equipment deployments within the City's jurisdiction separately from the total number of "reportable uses" of force or discharges of military weapons in its annual MEU reports. All procedures for documenting the deployment of military equipment should be clearly defined. Any transparency standards should require reporting any deployments visible to the community, and not be limited to only uses of force or discharging the weapon.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Improves upon 2022 MEU Recommendation #2. AB 481, requires that a Use Report include “A summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use.” The current Annual Use Report from SPD does not list how or when the equipment was deployed in a critical incident, only "reportable uses" of force when military weapons are discharged during the incident. The Department classified 86 incidents of the 248,983 contacts in the last year as "reportable uses," with the reportable ratio to all contacts being 4:10,000. Members of the public considered this to be "an outrageous under-reporting" that "obviously conceals a great deal of police from accountability."

SPD RESPONSE

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS

APPENDIX

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 179

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2023 MEU Community Recommendation #2

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 02/12/2024

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT

RETURNED TO SCPRC

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use

SPD policy does not detail the limits or prohibitions of military equipment use in civilian settings.

Amend GO 410.06: Add a standalone section(s) to the General Order that clearly states when and where military equipment or munitions are prohibited for deployment, use or discharge. Add written language that clearly states the actual and inclusive allowed uses for each type of military equipment under its authorized usage section.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Improves upon 2022 MEU Recommendation #6. The lack of clear limitations for using military weapons and equipment is among the most serious concerns raised by community members, civil rights advocates, and members of City Council. These concerns arise from a documented history of racial bias and discriminatory outcomes in SPD practices and procedures which 3 separate studies over the last 20 years have confirmed to disproportionately impact Black residents. Following the 2020 George Floyd protests in Sacramento, video documentation shared at City Council on January 19th, 2021, was alarming enough for the Mayor and City Council to direct OPSA and SCPRC to investigate potential misuses of military equipment against peaceful protesters. That response is currently the subject of at least 2 ongoing lawsuits calling into question whether SPD’s prior military equipment policies were followed and whether the policies avoided excessive use of force.

If the current MEU policy can describe situations where equipment can be used, the proposed policy should also specify the situations in which it cannot be used. We recommend that City Council add clear language stating the specific situations where SPD is unauthorized to use military equipment. For example, specific situations such as:
• if use of drones for criminal investigations is not authorized without a warrant; • if use of rubber bullets and chemical agents is not authorized when vulnerable persons are present, or for crowd control;
• if use of armored vehicles for arresting a suspect is not authorized without consideration of alternatives.

Given this history and the questions these incidents raise, it is important for the City Council to require SPD to clearly define authorize and unauthorized usage of its military equipment to show the public that corrective action has been taken to remedy prior nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance with AB 481.

Supporting Sources:
i. Center for Policing Integrity, The National Justice Database City Report, Sacramento Police Department, 2014 - 2019,
SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 180

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/center.for .policing.equity/viz/SacramentoPDCPE2021 /1_SUMMARY
ii. Dr. Howard P . Greenwald, Final Report: Police Vehicle Stops in Sacramento, California, October 31, 2001, https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Police/Transparency/Vehicle-S top- Data-History-and-Information#:~:text=Vehicle%20Stop%20Data%20Analysis%20Project. iii. Dr. John C. Lamberth, Traffic Stop Data Analysis Project for the Sacramento Police Department, August 2008, https://www.cityofsacramento.org/- /media/Corporate/Files/Police/Transparency/VSDF/SacramentoPoliceDepartmentFinalRepor t_8-7-08.pdf?la=en
iv. Agenda Item #16, Police Department Presentation on Protest Activity , Sacramento City Council Meeting, January 19, 2021 (video shared during Sacramento City Councilmember Katie Valenzuela’s comments)
https://sacramento.granicus.com/MediaPlayer .php?view_id=22&clip_id=4822&meta_id=61 2705
v. Garza v. City of Sacramento, ED. Cal. Case No. 2:20 -cv-01229-WBS-EFB (ongoing lawsuit alleging excessive use of force by SPD using military weapons and equipment) vi. White v. City of Sacramento, ED. Cal. Case No. 2:21 -cv-02211-JAM-DB (ongoing lawsuit alleging discriminatory use of force and harassment by SPD using military weapons and equipment)

SPD RESPONSE

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS

APPENDIX

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 181

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2023 MEU Community Recommendation #3

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 02/12/2024

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT

RETURNED TO SCPRC

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use

SPD's policy uses vague or overly broad terms to allow military equipment to be deployed, but without any clear limits for how it is used in civilian settings.

Amend GO 410.06(H)(1-15): Remove all language under each section authorizing military equipment deployment or usage in situations that includes "crowd control" or "circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained."

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Improves upon 2022 MEU Recommendation #6. A crowd is not in itself a danger to life or property.

Furthermore, the First Amendment protects the freedom of assembly. The policy already authorizes the use of the equipment against dangerous, and/or combative individuals, or during riots or civil unrest incidents.

Community members that the broad use of “crowd control” could allow police to deploy weapons to intimidate or use in circumstance that do not warrant the use of the equipment. The Commission agrees: SPD and City Council must revisit the necessity of military equipment for “crowd control” purposes.

SPD RESPONSE

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS

APPENDIX

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 182

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2023 MEU Community Recommendation #4

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 02/12/2024

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT

RETURNED TO SCPRC

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use

SPD's annual military equipment use (MEU) reports are unclear, lack context, or omit key metrics necessary to meaningfully assess how its military equipment is being used.

Amend GO 410.06(D): Require SPD to produce its annual report using Comparative Reporting and Demographic Reporting to provide information that includes, but is not limited to:

1. Where it uses its military equipment and munitions.

2. Who it is used against.

3. In what context the equipment is used.

SPD to produce its annual MEU reports using less legal jargon to allow it to be accessible to members of the public and City Council, using more widely known synonyms for more technical terms and establishing clear definitions for words without the appropriate synonyms.

Reports should be published alongside summarized pages that provide all measurable data, using comparative and demographic reporting, that includes, but is not limited to:

1. Total number of critical incidents where military equipment was used or deployed in a table or chart format, including the number of officers and civilians involved in these incidents.

2. Total annual cost of its current military equipment inventory that includes the costs of personnel time, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrades, and other ongoing costs in its calculation.

3. Projected amount and cost for all military equipment that may be requested compared with the previous year, including the costs of personnel time, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrades, and other ongoing costs in its calculation.

4. Fiscal impact of this cost upon the overall police budget, using total dollar amounts and percentages.

5. List of dates and locations for all community outreach and engagement events involving military equipment uses or demonstrations, including the total cost for these events.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Improves upon 2022 MEU Recommendation #2. AB 481 requires a law enforcement agency to submit an annual military equipment report that at minimum covers the following:
• A summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use. • A summary of any complaints or concerns received concerning the military equipment. • The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the military equipment use policy, and any actions taken in response.
• The total annual cost for each type of military equipment, including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs, and from what SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 183

source funds will be provided for the military equipment in the calendar year following submission of the annual military equipment report.
• The quantity possessed for each type of military equipment.

Using the information contained in the annual report, City Council is required to “only approve a military equipment use policy pursuant to AB 481 if it determines all of the following:

1. The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.

2. The proposed military equipment use policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.

3. If purchasing the equipment, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.

4. Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.

The City and SPD frequently mentions their desire for data-driven policies, and the Commission appreciates the inclusion of some demographic data in its annual report and summary for the community forums. However, the 2022 annual MEU report is still missing key metrics and comparative reporting requested by SCPRC and the City Council that would allow for meaningfully evaluation and measurement of the impacts of SPD's military equipment usage.

The current policy language is still vague in its annual reporting requirements and does not require SPD to provide annual metrics for how it uses its military equipment compared with the US military, where it is used, or in what context. SCPRC believes that in order for future reports to be AB 481 compliant, these must provide information about where the equipment was utilized, who it was used against, and the reason SPD thought it necessary to deploy military equipment.

SPD RESPONSE

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS

APPENDIX

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 184

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2023 MEU Community Recommendation #5

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 02/12/2024

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT

RETURNED TO SCPRC

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use

Community engagement regarding SPD's military equipment use policy is poorly promoted.

Changes in Existing Policy(s): Establish a formal and standardized process for soliciting community input and incorporating feedback into annual updates of SPD's military equipment use policy. The process should be written into GO 410.06 and include clear timelines for when SPD opens its community survey and when SCPRC will host no less than 3 community input forums before the annual report goes to City Council. The process should adopt the SCPRC's proposed Community Outreach Plan and promote all community surveys and input forums through coordinated outreach campaigns utilizing the City’s website, mailing list and social media accounts, including those used for SPD and City Councilmembers.

The community survey should be open to the public no later than 4 months prior the Department's annual deadline for approving MEU policy updates (currently September 13th). The community input forums should be conducted no later 3 months prior to approving MEU policy updates. All feedback and policy recommendations captured from the survey and input forums should be included in a final report completed by SCPRC, published on the City's website, and presented to City Council before the annual MEU report goes to City Council and before adoption of any MEU policy updates.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Expands upon 2022 MEU Recommendation #2. When citywide policing changes are made, there are few venues for the public to voice concerns or engage directly with the police department or City outside of the two-minute public comment afforded at City Council meetings. This became clear at the community forums, where a lot of pent-up frustrations were expressed, but once voiced and acknowledged, gave space for thoughtful discussion between community members and SPD officers.

While the forums were specifically designed to solicit feedback on the proposed MEU policy, it was clear that there is a desire by city residents to be engaged more deeply and thoughtfully on policing in general. One takeaway frequently expressed by the public was the need for SCPRC to have more authority to review policies, procedures, and data on a timely basis.

The Commission agrees: the public needs earlier and more visible public notice of future community input meetings about the MEU report and policy, which includes sharing meeting notices, SPD’s draft of its annual MEU Report, planned procurements, and policy updates at least ninety (90) to one-hundred twenty (120) days in advance as suggested by community members.

SPD RESPONSE

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 185

APPENDIX

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 186

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2023 MEU Community Recommendation #6

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 02/12/2024

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT

RETURNED TO SCPRC

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use

AB 481 is clear that there must be a mechanism to ensure compliance with the military equipment use policy, including which independent person or entities have oversight authority and what legally enforceable sanctions are put in place for violations of the policy. SPD’s current policy comply with the requirement.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): Designate independent oversight authority to the Office of Public Safety and Accountability (OPSA), the Inspector General (IG), and the SCPRC for ensuring SPD’s compliance with this policy and AB 481. OPSA and IG should be responsible for investigating any individual violations of the MEU policy. SCPRC should have authority to review and provide recommendations for remedying nonconforming uses to SPD, the Mayor and City Council before the adoption of any changes to the MEU policy.

Require SPD to publish its disciplinary matrix for all violations under its MEU policy and to publicly report the total number of violations and the disciplinary actions issued in response to policy violations in its annual use reports. Reports should clearly define each infraction and a progressive list of disciplinary actions available for the Department to take against offending officers.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Improves upon 2022 MEU Recommendation #8. AB 481 is clear that a written MEU policy must include “the mechanisms to ensure compliance with the military equipment use policy, including which independent persons or entities have oversight authority, and, if applicable, what legally enforceable sanctions are put in place for violations of the policy.” This requires SPD to identify any oversight entities that are independent from the Department, as well as any legally enforceable sanctions for MEU policy violations. The current MEU policy provides none of these.

During the community forums, a common refrain among the public was that SPD cannot self-certify its compliance with AB 481 or the adopted MEU policy and called for independent oversight authority be designated to the Office of Public Safety and Accountability (OPSA), the Inspector General (IG), and the Community Police Review Commission. The public also called for greater accountability in the form of a clear matrix of progressive disciplinary measures for officers violating the MEU policy and command orders, including a chart or listing of disciplinary actions taken year over year.

In response to community members, SPD verbally identified the City Council (the "governing body" under AB 481) as an "independent oversight entity" and to whom instances of non-compliance are reported via its annual MEU report. In the MEU policy, SPD’s own Inspections and Standards Unit and Professional Standards Unit are designated as their oversight authorities to refer violations to its Internal Affairs Division. Given all three SPD bodies are budgeted under the Department’s Office of the Chief, the SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 187

selection of these three entities raises questions about the independence of these oversight authorities and seems contrary to the minimum requirements of AB 481.

Though the Department describes the procedure for filing and investigating complaints, the policy does not clearly define what “legally enforceable sanctions” are in place for MEU policy violations and only refers violations to be “handled in accordance with RM 220.01 (Internal Investigations Manual).” Furthermore, SPD has not provided a general disciplinary matrix or minimum baseline for sustained complaints in either the MEU policy or its public list of general orders. This lack of formal disciplinary guidelines has been cited by both the California Attorney General and the SCPRC, which have submitted separate recommendations for addressing this deficiency.

To ensure meaningful accountability under this policy, it is important for the City Council to choose an independent oversight authority separate from SPD that can be impartial and prioritize the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.

Supporting Sources:
i. California Government Code Section 7070(d)
ii. California DOJ, Review of Sacramento Police Department 2020 Report, pp. 65, https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press- docs/SPD%20Report%20Phase%20II.pdf iii. Sacramento Community Police Review Commission 2020 Disciplinary & Accountability Ad Hoc Recommendations

SPD RESPONSE

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS

APPENDIX

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 188

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2023 MEU Community Recommendation #7

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 02/12/2024

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT

RETURNED TO SCPRC

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use

SPD policy is unclear about the type of chemical agents possessed in its military equipment inventory and does not report the potential hazards to public health or local environments from deployments of chemical agents.

Amend GO 410.06(H)(7,12,14): Consolidate all military munitions, grenades, or canisters that deploys any type of chemical agent listed under AB 48 into the "Chemical Agents and Smoke Canisters" category.

Under the consolidated category, add language or links to manufacturers' websites that contains information including, but is not limited to:

1. Clear definitions for each type of chemical agent possessed by SPD (i.e. pepper spray, tear gas, smoke cannisters, etc).

2. Any health or environmental hazards from the deployment of each type of chemical agent.

3. Procedures for cleaning up after deployments of chemical agents.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
A key takeaway from community members was the need for greater transparency about the SPD’s inventory and use of chemical agents. Community members want clarity about the type of chemical agents it possesses and information about their chemical make, how SPD or City staff clean up after deploying smoke canisters, flash-bangs or chemical agents which may linger in the air or leave surface residue, as well as any health or environmental dangers from use of this military equipment.

SPD RESPONSE

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS

APPENDIX

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 189

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2023 MEU Community Recommendation #8

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 02/12/2024

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT

RETURNED TO SCPRC

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use

Community members would like to see their City Council member participate in the community engagement process related to military equipment use policy.

Adopt a New Policy: City Council coordinate directly with SCPRC and SPD to organize community input forum(s) within their respective districts. Each city council member should coordinate with SCPRC Chair and Vice-Chair to either host a community input forum within their respective council district, or at minimum, attend at least one (1) community input forum in a listening capacity within the bounds of the Ralph M. Brown Act.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Throughout all three (3) community forums, the public was unequivocally clear in feeling ignored by their City Council members in past discussions and decisions concerning SPD policies and practices. The Commission noted that only two City Council members attended any of the community forums, and the public frequently questioned whether City Council would listen or act any differently than it has given their absence.

As such, the Commission recommends the Mayor and City Council members work with SCPRC to should attend at least one of the established community meetings, or host one within their respective districts.

SPD RESPONSE

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS

APPENDIX

SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW COMMISSION – ANNUAL REPORT 2023 190

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2023 MEU Community Recommendation #7

DISCUSSED BY SCPRC

APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW
RECEIVED BY SPD 02/12/2024

APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT

RETURNED TO SCPRC

PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use

Community requested that the Sacramento Community Police Review Commission be given adequate funding and resources for more frequent community engagement outside of monthly meetings.

Changes to Existing Policy(s): City Council approve annual funding for SCPRC to continue to engage community directly and more often throughout the year.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
Community expressed a strong desire for regular and more frequent community engagement beyond the annual MEU input sessions. For this year’s community forums, the SCPRC ’s Community Outreach Plan called for the City to secure easily accessible venues and offer child care and refreshments for each meeting, which was well received by the public.

The public called for SCPRC and SPD to receive more funding to engage community more frequently.

Community also called for the City to use its full resources to better advertise public meetings via their media contacts, existing email list-servs for community leaders and organizations, as well as placement in City Council members’ newsletters, websites and District meetings.

SPD RESPONSE

OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS

APPENDIX

Personnel and Public Employees CommitteeApril 30, 2024

Personnel and Public Employees Committee
April 30, 2024