Annual Report
2025
City of San Jose
The Office of the Independent Police Auditor
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa1
Use of Force
Great Bodily Injuries
Officer-Involved Shooting Summary
10 39
57 Community
Engagement
2025 At A Glance 05 06
27 Audit Totals &
Statistical Data
54 58
IPA Organizational
Chart
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
The IPA’s 2025
Recommendations
IPA Budget 59
California Racial and
Identity Profiling Act
(RIPA)
04 Welcome 03 MessageVision & Mission
Statement
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Overview &
Significant
Developments
Definitions 09
OFFICE MISSION & VISION
“Promote accountability, strengthen policy, and build
community trust through independent oversight of
misconduct investigations, use of force reviews, and
investigations into serious officer-involved incidents, including in-custody deaths.”
Become a national model for transparent, proactive,
and community-centered civilian oversight,
grounded in accountability, excellence, and public
trust.
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
MISSION STATEMENT
VISION STATEMENT
3 WELCOME MESSAGE FROM
THE OFFICE OF THE INDEPENDENT
POLICE AUDITOR
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
4 My name is Dwight White, and I have the privilege of serving as the Interim Independent Police Auditor for the City of San Jose. I’m honored to present the IPA’s 2025 Annual Report and to share the critical work our office has undertaken this past year.
The IPA was established in 1993 because San Jose community members stood up and demanded something vital:
independent civilian oversight in cases of alleged police misconduct. Our office exists because the community called for more transparency, more accountability, and ultimately, more justice in law enforcement.
Recommendations
That founding spirit continues to guide us today. The recommendations made in this year’s report are not simply about technical or procedural reforms, instead they speak directly to how community members are treated, how their rights are respected, and how they can expect fairness, professionalism, and transparency from those entrusted with enforcing the law.
These are not just policy changes. They are steps toward rebuilding and sustaining public trust as well as ensuring that oversight remains truly independent, rooted in the values and expectations of the community we serve.
Sustain Rate
Accountability remains the cornerstone of our mission. During this reporting period, our sustained rate which indicates how often policy violations are supported by the evidence reached 11%. This figure reflects more than just a number; it represents the dedication and thoroughness of our analyst team. Their careful, principled work ensures that each case is handled with integrity and that officers are held responsible when misconduct is found.
Casework and Community Engagement
I express my deepest gratitude to the remarkable individuals who constitute the Office of the Independent Police Auditor, as well as the community members who have entrusted us with their concerns and complaints. In 2025, we conducted 330 case audits, each measured against a fair and consistent standard. Our analysts also participated in an IPA record of 172 officer interviews, directly engaging with the details of each case. Beyond investigative work, we made 5,518 community connections and delivered numerous presentations, strengthening relationships and raising awareness throughout the city.
Conclusion
In closing, I wish to thank the Mayor and City Council for supporting the IPA’s independence and for empowering this office to follow the facts wherever they lead. This report is a reflection of our enduring commitment to transparency, justice, and accountability.
Respectfully submitted:
Dwight A. White
Interim Independent Police Auditor
Top 5 Policy Violations Sustained in 2025
Loss of Dept. Property Conduct Unbecoming Courtesy Scope of Investigation Accuracy & Brevity 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 2025 AT A GLANCE
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
5 942 Allegations
Closed
330 Cases Audited
& Closed By IPA
Top 5 Allegations Received In 2025
Procedure Courtesy Bias Based Policing Arrest & Detention Search & Seizure 0 100
200
300
400
500
102 Allegations
Sustained
11% Sustained
Rate
172 Internal Affairs
Interviews Attended
One Officer
Led the
Entire
Department
with 7
Complaints
in 2025
11 8 7 7 4
438 144 139 118 69
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
OVERVIEW AND SIGNIFICANT
DEVELOPMENTS
The 2025 Year-End Report reflects a year of building upon the foundation restored in 2024. The IPA continued real-time auditing, expanded the structure and discipline of its oversight work, and advanced partnerships intended to improve both accountability and public safety. The report also recognizes the difficult work SJPD performs under real staffing pressures. The IPA’s role is to evaluate investigations independently, identify lessons from actual cases, and help the City build better policing through policy, training, leadership, and sound systems.
OVERSIGHT OPERATIONS
Workload. The IPA completed 330 case audits and participated in 172 subject-officer interviews with Internal Affairs.
Real-time auditing. The office continued reviewing developing investigations, identifying additional work when needed, and resolving most matters through direct engagement with IA.
Institutional progress. The proposed IA–IPA agreement moved forward.
CHANGE IN OIS SCENE RESPONSE
Changed protocol. At the beginning of 2026, after reassessing its practice of responding to officer-involved shooting scenes, the IPA discontinued automatic on-scene responses because its presence at the scene provides no meaningful additional information. The IPA is not granted access to the scene, nor does it have access to the briefing, or walkthrough. The IPA is kept in the dark and completely out of the process. 6 CRITICAL INCIDENTS AND USE OF FORCE
Department-wide trend. SJPD reported 598 use-of-force incidents in 2025, a 5% increase from 569 in 2024 and the first interruption of the longer-term decline from the 2020 high. Use-of-force complaints also increased by 2.2%.
Serious-force review. The available materials identify 16 completed Great Bodily Injury (GBI) investigations for the reporting cycle, 1 in-custody death, and three officer-involved shootings (OIS).
Late production. Eleven completed GBI investigations were either provided near the publication deadline or identified after the initial production and added before final publication.
Important limitation. For most non-GBI force incidents (582 incidents), the IPA receives Department-wide statistics but not the underlying reports, videos, BWCs, or related evidence needed for case-level analysis. www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
WHAT CITY COUNCIL AND THE PUBLIC
SHOULD KNOW
Key findings, recommendations, and limits of the available data The IPA completed 330 audits and participated in 172 subject-officer interviews. It agreed with the Department at first review in 290 audits (88%) and after further action in 28 more (8%); 11 cases closed with concerns and one with disagreement. IPA appealed three cases to the Chief of Police that resulted in the findings being changed.
SJPD reported 598 use-of-force incidents, a 5% increase over 2024 and use-of-force complaints increased by 2.2%. The report also addresses completed GBI investigations and three 2025 OIS incidents, while distinguishing statistical reporting from substantive case review.
Community complaints increased by 24% and Biased-Based Policing allegations increased by 40% with 0 sustained.
The office reached 5,518 residents, advanced IPAAC, strengthened community partnerships, moved the IA–IPA agreement forward, and completed a historical review of prior recommendations.
The recommendations are grounded in real cases the IPA audited. Taken together, they ask the City to:
Clarify constitutional, privacy, and field-operational guidance, including Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) access, cell-phone ping limitations, outside-jurisdiction notification, and vehicle exit orders.
Create accountable critical-incident processes: Provide every completed GBI and OIS investigation within 30 days of closure with access to the full evidentiary record.
WHAT THE REPORT FOUND
WHAT THE IPA RECOMMENDS
7 www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
WHAT CITY COUNCIL AND THE PUBLIC
SHOULD KNOW
Key findings, recommendations, and limits of the available data The IPA receives Department-wide statistical information concerning reported uses of force. It does not currently receive the reports, body-worn camera footage, videos, and related evidence necessary to conduct case-level analysis of most non-GBI force incidents (582 incidents). Statistical review can identify changes in frequency, but it cannot independently explain why force increased or assess tactics, de-escalation, reporting, and supervisory review in individual cases.
This limitation does not establish that the increase was improper. It defines the boundary between what the available statistics can show and what would require independent review of the underlying cases.
WHAT THE DATA CANNOT ANSWER
8 9
Allegation - An allegation is a way to describe a individual act of potential misconduct. Complaints often have more than one allegation.
Arrest & Detention - An arrest which lacks probable cause or a detention which lacks reasonable suspicion.
Audit - Is a special review conducted by the OIPA that
occurs when an investigation is complete by SJPD. The
audit occurs in real time and OIPA reviews the allegations that are made.
Bias Based Policing: Occurs when an officer engages in
conduct based upon a protected class.
Bill - A bill is a proposal for a new law
Case - A situation requiring investigation.
Conduct Unbecoming an Officer - An officer’s conduct,
either on or off duty, which adversely reflects upon the SJPD is deemed to be conduct unbecoming an officer.
Complainant - The refers to the person making the
misconduct complaint against the officer.
Complaint - Usually refers to a misconduct complaint. An allegation of improper conduct by a sworn officer.
Courtesy - The officer used profane or derogatory
language, wasn’t tactful lost their temper or was
otherwise discourteous or unprofessional.
DII - Stands for Department Initiated Investigation. This occurs when a complaint originates from within the SJPD.
Documented Counseling: A formal disciplinary action
that involves a supervisor addressing misconduct
concerns.
Duty Manual: The policies and procedures of SJPD
Finding - Is a conclusion stemming from the case
evidence.
Internal Affairs - Sometimes called (“IA”) are police
officers assigned to the Internal Affairs unit of the SJPD who receive and investigate complaints.
Letter of Reprimand: a formal, written disciplinary
action used in the workplace to address an employee's
misconduct or performance issues.
Non Misconduct Concern: SJPD will classify a complaint
as a Non Misconduct Concern if, after reviewing, the
case will not result in a policy violation.
Search & Seizure - A search or a seizure which violated the protections provided by the 4 Amendment.
th
Subject Officer: The officer who is accused of
committing misconduct.
Sustain Rate: The percentage of misconduct complaints
that result in a sustained finding.
Procedure - The officer did not follow appropriate
policy, procedure, or guidelines.
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa
DEFINITIONS
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
2025 IPA RECOMMENDATIONS
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa 10
Why This Matters
Automated license-plate-reader (ALPR) data such as FLOCK contains sensitive vehicle-location information subject to legal restrictions on access, retention, and use. During the audit period, the IPA identified a case in which FLOCK data was accessed through a personal device outside Department-controlled systems.
Access outside those systems weakens the Department's ability to secure and audit database activity, preserve records, and determine who accessed information and why. It also raises the risk of unauthorized use, deletion, or dissemination.
Case Example
While off duty, an officer used a personal cell phone to run multiple FLOCK queries for personal reasons tied to a domestic-violence matter involving the officer’s family member. The officer located the victim, shared her location with his relative who was the suspected aggressor, told the relative to conceal that knowledge, and later deleted the related communications from the phone.
The allegations were sustained and discipline was imposed on the officer. However, there was no measure in place at the time that restricted access from ALPR’s through an officer’s personal device.
Current Policy and Identified Gap
Department policy governs ALPR use and access, and state law governs the collection, access, use, and retention of ALPR data. Existing policy, however, does not expressly prohibit accessing FLOCK or similar ALPR data through personal devices, or require access through Department-authorized and managed systems only.
This recommendation closes the gap between the confidentiality and accountability requirements of existing data-access policies and the devices through which ALPR data may be retrieved.
The Department should update the Duty Manual to restrict and prohibit FLOCK and ALPR database access via officers’ personal devices. 2025 IPA RECOMMENDATIONS
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa 11
Recommendation # 1: Flock/ALPR Access
Only Through Approved Department Systems
2025 IPA RECOMMENDATIONS
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa 12
Recommendation # 2: Additional Training
on the Limitations of Cell Phone Pings
Why This Matters
Cell phone ping data gives an approximate location within a reported radius that may span several blocks or more. By itself, it does not establish that a person or device is at a particular address.
Over-reliance on ping data can misdirect resources, delay responses, or produce unsupported assumptions about a subject's location. Ensuring personnel understand what ping data can and cannot establish promotes better-informed decisions and supports compliance with applicable legal standards.
Case Example
During an investigation involving felony vandalism and a restraining-order violation, SJPD obtained a one-time cell phone ping associated with an address in a neighboring city. Officers searched the residence, which was under construction, but the suspect was not there, appeared not to live there, and was later arrested elsewhere.
The ping reflected an approximate location within a two-mile radius, but that radius was not communicated to the officers conducting the follow-up. As a result, the address may have been treated as more precise than the data supported.
Current Policy and Identified Gap
A one-time cell phone ping identifies an approximate area, not a precise location or confirmed address. The Duty Manual does not address:
the accuracy limitations of ping-radius information;
the need to communicate the reported radius and known limitations to personnel relying on it; the need to corroborate ping information when feasible; or how ping information should be weighed with other facts when assessing reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and appropriate field responses.
This recommendation fills a practical policy and training gap by ensuring personnel understand the evidentiary and operational limits of cell-phone location data.
Train officers on the limitations of cell phone ping-radius information and how that information should be communicated, corroborated, and evaluated when making investigative and field-operational decisions.
2025 IPA RECOMMENDATIONS
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa 13
Recommendation # 3: Establish Guidelines for Directing
Occupants to Exit Vehicles During Routine Traffic Stops Why This Matters
The IPA reviewed several cases in which officers ordered vehicle occupants to exit during routine traffic stops, yet the legal basis for those orders was either unclear or inconsistently applied. While federal case law (e.g., Pennsylvania v. Mimms 434 U.S. 106 (1970) and Maryland v. Wilson 519 U.S. 408 (1997)) grants officers authority to order occupants out of vehicles, it also leaves room for officer discretion, which, when exercised inconsistently or without documentation, can create legal risk for the City and confusion or mistrust among community members.
Discretion should be informed by articulable safety or investigative concerns, not treated as an automatic response. The absence of clear guidance leads to varied practices that can appear arbitrary, especially when no enforcement action follows the exit order.
Case Example
In multiple cases, officers referenced “Pennsylvania v. Mimms” when removing passengers during stops for minor violations. When arrests occurred, documentation of the stop and detention was included. However, in cases where occupants were merely cited or released, no reports reflected the justification for the exit order or the continued detention.
In one case, an officer stopped a vehicle with four passengers for a traffic violation. When asked why the occupants hadn’t been ordered out, a second officer responded, "Why did we stop them if we are not going to pull them out of the car?" The occupants were then ordered out of the vehicle without any articulated safety concerns or documentation of the decision. This suggests that the removal of the occupants was treated as a routine step, rather than based on the totality of the circumstances.
The IPA closed this case with concerns, noting the absence of documentation and the lack of clear discretionary criteria.
Current Policy and Identified Gap
The Duty Manual policy or training gives no specific guidance on the factors officers should weigh in deciding whether to order a person out during a routine stop, the application of Pennsylvania v. Mimms and Maryland v. Wilson, or how to document the decision.
Adopt written guidance that explains when officers may direct occupants to exit a vehicle during a routine traffic stop, the factors informing that discretionary decision, and how the basis should be documented. The policy should ensure the practice is based on articulable circumstances rather than applied automatically. 2025 IPA RECOMMENDATIONS
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
14 Recommendation # 4: Establish a policy that prohibits officers from using profanity as a de-escalation technique Why This Matters
The IPA reviewed multiple cases where the tone and language used by officers, not the underlying police action itself were the primary source of public complaints. These cases highlight that de-escalation is not limited to force-related situations. The way an officer communicates during any interaction shapes public perceptions of legitimacy, fairness, and professionalism. Respectful, calm, and clear communication is the most effective, accessible, and low-risk de-escalation tool available, and it is often where the gap between community expectations and officer conduct is most visible.
Case Example
In four cases reviewed by the IPA, officers repeatedly used profanity, especially variations of "shut the fuck up" as a method they described as “de-escalation.” Officers defended this language as a tactic to "shock," "snap," or reassert control over individuals who were argumentative or talkative. That rationale itself is problematic. Profanity and disparaging language should not be treated as legitimate control techniques, especially when they escalate tension or serve no clear operational purpose. These incidents occurred across both routine and high-stress situations:
In one case, an officer directed profane language toward a driver and their child during a traffic-collision investigation.
In two others, individuals were argumentative but not physically threatening, yet officers responded with repeated profanity.
In another case, a bystander asking for badge numbers was cursed at and arrested for “resisting arrest.” In the most serious case, an officer yelled, "We don't fuck around in San Jose, asshole" and "shut the fuck up" while kneeling on a subject’s back even after the individual said, "I can't breathe," and the scene had stabilized.
The Department should adopt clear, written guidance stating that professional, courteous communication is a core de-escalation practice, expected in all interactions. The policy should explicitly prohibit the use of profanity or disparaging language as a routine control tactic and provide clear standards for evaluating communication-related complaints.
Current Policy and Identified Gap
The IPA identified a pattern in officer beliefs: several officers reported that shouting profanity at community members is a legitimate de-escalation technique. However, this approach undermines professionalism, escalates tension, and contradicts public expectations. Currently, SJPD policy does not clearly prohibit or address the misuse of profanity as a de-escalation method. 2025 IPA RECOMMENDATIONS
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa 15
Recommendation # 5: Notify Community Members
When Police Officers Lose or Damage Their Property
Why This Matters
During the audit period, the IPA reviewed a case in which property taken into Department custody was later found to have been lost, but the affected community member was not proactively notified and learned of it only by filing a complaint. When the Department loses someone's property and does not tell them, leaving them to discover the loss and navigate an unfamiliar claims process alone, it is deeply corrosive to trust.
Affirmative notification is a basic accountability measure.
Case Example
During a welfare check, a records check revealed a warrant and the complainant was arrested. Before being booked, the complainant asked the officer where her cell phone was. The officer thought he had it in his possession but later realized he had misplaced it. After she was booked, he retraced his path but could not find the cell phone; body-worn camera showed he had set the phone on the roof of his patrol vehicle. He wrote a report about the lost phone but never notified the complainant the phone was lost, nor advised her of any reimbursement or follow-up process. The case reached IA/IPA only because she filed a complaint, after the reimbursement period had expired. The allegation of losing the phone was sustained and discipline was imposed on the officer.
Adopt a written policy requiring police officers to notify a community member when the Department determines that the person’s property has been lost or damaged and to explain the available claims or follow-up process.
Current Policy and Identified Gap
The Duty Manual and Department procedures govern evidence and property handling, including intake, storage, and release. No clear requirement obligates the Department to affirmatively contact a community member when their property is lost; the process is largely reactive, placing the burden on the individual to inquire or complain. This recommendation closes that gap in the notification and accountability chain.
2025 IPA RECOMMENDATIONS
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa 16
Recommendation # 6: K9 Handlers To Make Reasonable
Efforts To Inspect For and Document Property Damage After A Canine Deployment
Why This Matters
When property is damaged during a police action, contemporaneous documentation protects everyone: it lets the City respond to claims, lets officers show the damage was incidental to a lawful operation, and gives community members a record of what happened to their belongings. However, the duty to document is triggered by awareness of damage, and nothing requires an officer to look. That creates a predictable gap: When a canine comes into contact with property during a deployment, damage can occur without the handler's knowledge and go unrecorded. Canines routinely brace against vehicles during a sniff, so this will re-occur. Requiring an inspection gives effect to the existing documentation duty, just as an inspection is required whenever a canine contacts a person.
Case Example
The IPA reviewed a case in which a narcotics-detection canine, during an exterior sniff, put its front paws against the driver's door and scratched the paint. No narcotics were found, and the handling officer, who watched the sniff, was unaware of the damage his dog had caused. Internal Affairs exonerated the officer, finding he did not direct the contact, and did not know damage resulted. Internal Affairs reasoned that an officer cannot be held to a documentation duty for damage he does not know exists. This exposes the gap the recommendation seeks to address. The officer was directed to check for canine-caused damage going forward; a policy provision would extend that fix to every handler.
Adopt a policy requirement that a K9 handler make reasonable efforts to inspect areas of likely contact after a canine deployment involving possible contact with property and document any damage found under existing reporting rules.
Current Policy and Identified Gap
The Duty Manual requires reports for a range of police actions, and Section L 9012 governs documentation when property is damaged. No provision addresses the duty to inspect for damage after a canine comes into contact with property. Because the duty to document is triggered only by awareness, an officer who never looks is never obligated to report, which is exactly the gap the example reveals. This recommendation closes the gap by requiring inspection, which then triggers the existing documentation requirement when damage is found.
2025 IPA RECOMMENDATIONS
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa 17
Recommendation # 7: Timely Update Duty Manual When
Changes To the Law Are Made
Why This Matters
During the audit period, the IPA identified cases in which officers relied on Department policy that had not been updated to reflect current legal standards. When laws change but written policy remains outdated or inconsistent, officers may, despite acting in good faith, unintentionally violate a community member’s rights.
While training bulletins can offer timely interim updates, they do not eliminate the risk posed by conflicting or outdated provisions in the Duty Manual. Officers should not be placed in the position of having to reconcile multiple sources of departmental guidance. Ensuring that all written directives are current minimizes confusion, supports fair and consistent accountability, reduces legal risk, and enhances officers’ confidence in the direction they receive.
Case Example
In late 2024, officers stopped a vehicle for a traffic violation. Based on officer-safety concerns and the strong odor of marijuana, they conducted a pat-down and searched the vehicle, including the covered truck bed and engine compartment. No contraband was found. The justification for the search relied solely on the odor of marijuana.
However, the Duty Manual section which was last revised in 2018 did not reflect the current legal standard. A March 4, 2022, training bulletin (TB2022-005) clarified that marijuana odor alone does not establish probable cause for a vehicle search and that additional facts are required. However, the Duty Manual was never updated to incorporate this change, leaving officers to rely on outdated instructions.
The officers were ultimately exonerated and received training, and the IPA closed the case with concerns.
Notably, both the Internal Affairs investigator and the IPA analyst independently flagged the inconsistency between the Duty Manual and more recent legal updates.
Establish an internal process for promptly reviewing and updating the Duty Manual, training bulletins, and other legal guidance when relevant laws or controlling legal standards change.
Current Policy and Identified Gap
This case illustrates two related gaps: Department guidance may not be issued promptly after a change in law, and interim guidance may remain disconnected from the Duty Manual for years after it is issued.
Without a coordinated, time-bound process, officers may face multiple sources of guidance that are incomplete, inconsistent, or outdated. This recommendation addresses the Department's responsibility to maintain accurate, consistent written guidance.
2025 IPA RECOMMENDATIONS
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa 18
Recommendation # 8: Timely Production and Full Evidentiary Access for Great Bodily Injury and Officer-Involved Shooting Investigations
Why This Matters
GBI and officer-involved incidents involve the Department's most serious force outcomes and warrant consistent, timely, and comprehensive independent review. A fixed production deadline ensures scrutiny does not depend on when, or whether, a completed investigation is eventually provided to the IPA.
Timely access to the full record also lets the IPA evaluate the incident itself rather than merely report statistics. Body-worn camera and other video are essential to that review; documentary materials alone may not adequately show the circumstances leading to the force, the actions of the officers and subject, or whether the investigation's factual and policy conclusions are supported by the evidence.
Case Example
The IPA initially received 10 completed GBI investigations for the 2025 review cycle. Five were not provided until days before the Annual Report's July processing deadline, leaving too little time for the full evidentiary review these incidents warrant. Four of the five had been completed by SJPD in April or May, showing the delay occurred after completion, not during the investigation.
After receiving those cases, the IPA checked for additional GBI investigations and found two more not included in the initial production, one completed in December 2025 and the other in February 2026. This raised the total completed GBI investigations identified for review from 10 to 12.
In total, 11 of the 16 completed GBI investigations, were either provided near the end of the reporting cycle or identified after the initial production. Most were therefore not available early enough for the timely, substantive review the IPA's oversight responsibilities contemplate.
Adopt a written, accountable process requiring SJPD to provide the IPA with every completed great bodily injury use-of-force investigation and officer-involved incident investigation within 30 days from the EFRC’s or the Chief’s final decision.
The process should provide the IPA full access, as permitted by law, to the evidence necessary for substantive review, including reports, body-worn camera and other video recordings, photographs, interviews, and other materials collected or relied upon during the investigation. Access should not be limited to documentary summaries. 2025 IPA RECOMMENDATIONS
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa 19
Current Policy and Identified Gap
GBI investigations have historically been provided to the IPA primarily for statistical reporting and on a documentary basis. No written standard sets when a completed GBI or officer-involved incident investigation must be provided, confirms that all completed cases are included, or ensures access to the complete evidentiary record, including body-worn camera footage.
Without a formal tracking, reconciliation, and verification process, completed investigations may be delayed or omitted from what the IPA receives. Finding two more completed GBI cases after the initial production shows the need for a process that reliably accounts for every completed investigation.
This recommendation would align production with the IPA's authority to substantively review these incidents under Measure G, and with the analyst capacity added for that purpose. It would also create a reliable record confirming that every completed investigation was timely provided. 2025 IPA RECOMMENDATIONS
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa 20
Recommendation # 9: Regular Review of Department Email
and Acknowledgment of Action-Required Communications
Why This Matters
During the audit period, the IPA reviewed cases in which officers were unaware of policy changes, training requirements, or directives sent through Department email. Because the Department relies on email as a primary channel, employees must have a corresponding responsibility to review it regularly.
Without a defined review expectation, the Department may treat important information as communicated even with no assurance the employee saw it. That creates an avoidable accountability gap: officers may be held responsible for requirements they never reviewed, while the Department lacks a reliable record that consequential communications were received and acknowledged.
A per-shift review expectation, paired with targeted acknowledgment tracking, would create clearer responsibilities on both sides: the Department would flag communications requiring action, and employees would review and acknowledge them within the stated period.
Case Example
In one case, an officer acknowledged he did not consistently review his Department email and estimated he checked it about once a week. He missed notice of a mandatory firearms-qualification requirement, failed to complete it, and received a sustained finding and discipline. The Department relied on email to communicate a mandatory obligation carrying disciplinary consequences, but no explicit per-shift email-review requirement was in place.
These cases present related but distinct concerns. The first was an employee's failure to regularly review Department email; the second was the Department's inability to confirm whether significant interim legal guidance had been received and acknowledged. Together they show the need for both a clear review expectation and a dependable acknowledgment process for communications carrying operational, training, policy, or disciplinary consequences.
Adopt a written expectation that officers review their Department email during each scheduled shift, when operationally practicable, and establish acknowledgment tracking for communications requiring employee action, including training bulletins, mandatorytraining notices, significant policy updates, Department orders, and time-sensitive supervisory directives.
2025 IPA RECOMMENDATIONS
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa 21
Current Policy and Identified Gap
The Duty Manual establishes general employee responsibilities and contains communication requirements in particular contexts, but it does not expressly require officers to review Department email during each scheduled shift.
The Manual also establishes no consistent process for identifying and tracking acknowledgment of communications that require employee action, such as mandatory-training notices, training bulletins, Department orders, significant policy changes, or time-sensitive directives.
This recommendation does not require acknowledgment of every Department email. It applies to communications the Department designates as requiring action or confirmation of receipt. Acknowledgment would establish that the employee received and reviewed the communication; it would not, by itself, establish full understanding or replace training when training is necessary. 2025 IPA RECOMMENDATIONS
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa 22
Recommendation # 10: Biannual Status Updates to City
Council on Open IPA Recommendations from 2020
Why This Matters
Recommendations without a follow-up mechanism are requests without accountability. The Department reports recommendation status annually to the Public Safety, Finance, and Strategic Support Committee (PSFSS), but that process combines IPA recommendations with hundreds of other reform items. Individual IPA recommendations are therefore hard to track, and the public has limited visibility into their status between annual reports.
Once Council accepts an IPA recommendation, there is no structured process that gives the Council recurring updates on whether the recommendation has been Started, In Progress, Implemented, or Declined. A recommendation-specific status process would create a routine checkpoint, preserve an accurate record, and prevent uncertainty from accumulating.
Recommendations issued before 2020 would be handled separately through a joint historical reconciliation with the Department and presented in a Historical Recommendations Archive, letting the quarterly process focus on maintaining a reliable record going forward.
Case Example
The annual PSFSS report combines IPA recommendations with other police-reform items, 539 in total, making individual IPA recommendations hard to follow. The IPA and the Department have jointly reviewed the status of recommendations from 2020 through 2024 and are confident in that record. Records before 2020 are less complete and will be addressed through a separate, best-effort reconciliation rather than the recurring status process this recommendation establishes.
Direct the IPA to give biannual status updates to City Council on all open IPA recommendations from 2020 to present.
Current Policy and Identified Gap
The IPA's enabling ordinance authorizes it to make policy recommendations, and Council acceptance creates an expectation that they will be addressed. Existing practice provides annual status reporting to the Public Safety, Finance, and Strategic Support Committee, but no process for the IPA to give Council recurring status updates on its own recommendations.
This recommendation fills that gap by requiring recommendation-specific updates tied to the Department's own committed target dates, holding it accountable to the timelines it sets rather than imposing an external schedule.
2025 IPA RECOMMENDATIONS
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa 23
Recommendation # 11: Provide Explanations
and Written Follow-up from Significant Police Actions
Why This Matters
A police action can be lawful and within policy but still feel arbitrary when the affected person is not told what is happening, why, or what comes next. Answers like “the courts allow it,” a case name, or “the warrant is sealed” may identify legal authority without actually explaining anything.
People affected by forced entry, property damage, or property seizure may also leave the encounter without knowing whom to contact, how to obtain a report, how to recover property, or how to pursue a remedy. What reaches the affected person is limited to a property receipt, not follow-up they can act on.
This standard would not require officers to give legal advice, debate the law, or disclose confidential information. It asks them to communicate available information accurately and understandably, and to provide practical guidance when the effects of police activity continue after the encounter. Clear communication reduces confusion, prevents avoidable complaints, and strengthens public confidence in the fair exercise of police authority.
Case Example
The IPA identified recurring complaints in which the underlying police action was lawful and within policy, but the community member did not understand what occurred or what to do next. Body-worn camera review generally confirmed the officers’ actions were within policy; the complaint arose from the absence of explanation or follow-up information. These were largely avoidable: the grievance was informational, and the remedy is communicative. Recurring examples included:
Search-warrant service. Residents reported little or no explanation about property taken, contact information, or how to obtain further information. In some cases, there was confusion over whether a property receipt could be issued because portions of the warrant were sealed, even though Department policy required a receipt.
Forced entry and property damage. Residents reported receiving no information about the incident number, report process, responsible unit, or City claims process. Several learned of available procedures only after contacting the IPA.
Detentions, searches, and vehicle exit orders. Officers sometimes answered questions with a case citation or a conclusory statement that the law permitted the action, without an understandable explanation of its basis when more information could safely have been provided.
Direct the Department to adopt and train on a Department-wide standard requiring officers, when safe and practicable, to explain in plain language the purpose of significant police actions, subject to lawful limits on disclosure and to provide written follow-up information when police activity results in forced entry, property damage, or property seizure.
2025 IPA RECOMMENDATIONS
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa 24
Current Policy and Identified Gap
While the Duty Manual requires officers to document incidents involving property damage, forced entry, or property seizure, these records are primarily internal and not designed to inform or support affected community members.
Although forms like the Property Report and Repair of Private Property Damage memorandum exist, they lack plain-language explanations or guidance on how individuals can recover property, obtain reports, or file claims.
What’s missing is a clear, enforceable standard requiring officers to provide understandable explanations of significant police actions (when safe and lawful to do so), along with written follow-up that supports public understanding and accountability. Without such a standard, communication failures persist, and valid public concerns often go unaddressed.
2025 IPA RECOMMENDATIONS
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa 25
Recommendation # 12: Revise Vehicle Impound
Policy to Align with 4th Amendment and
Community Caretaking Standards
Why It Matters
The IPA recommends revising L5210: Seizures of Vehicles to explicitly require officers to determine and document whether an impoundment serves a legitimate community caretaking purpose before authorizing a tow.
Currently, L5210 outlines several options for handling a vehicle when a driver is arrested, and the vehicle isn’t stolen, isn’t part of a crime, and doesn’t contain evidence that can’t be easily taken out at the scene.
While the policy encourages officers to consider alternatives to towing, it does not clearly require a constitutional analysis of whether the impoundment is necessary for public safety as mandated by California case law.
In Miranda v. City of Cornelius 429 F.3d 858 (9 Cir. 2005), the court held that vehicle impoundment must serve a valid community caretaking purpose to be constitutional; such as preventing a roadway hazard, making sure the vehicle does not impede traffic, threaten public safety, or protecting the vehicle from vandalism, or theft. The court ruled that a driver's arrest, by itself, is not sufficient justification to tow their vehicle. Therefore, without clear, enforceable language in section L 5210, the SJPD policy may be interpreted to permit tows even when vehicles pose no threat to public safety and safer, less invasive alternatives are available.
th
Case Example
This concern is not theoretical. The IPA reviewed several cases where officers impounded vehicles despite the availability of less invasive alternatives. Officers cited the advisory “should” language in section L 5210 as justification. In one case, a driver's family member was present to take possession of the vehicle, but the officers proceeded with a tow. In another case, a vehicle was seized directly from the driver’s home driveway. In both instances, confusion over policy language resulted in outcomes misaligned with constitutional standards and community trust.
By replacing vague, advisory language with clear requirements, such as using “shall” instead of “should” , and by requiring officers to assess and document whether a vehicle actually presents a public safety risk, the Department can bring its impoundment practices into alignment with the Fourth Amendment, reduce unnecessary financial burdens on San Jose residents, and build greater public confidence in the fairness of police procedures.
The IPA recommends revising Duty Manual Section L 5210: Seizures of Vehicles, to explicitly require officers to determine and document whether a vehicle impoundment serves a legitimate community caretaking purpose before authorizing a tow. 2025 IPA RECOMMENDATIONS
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa 26
Current Policy and Identified Gap
Under current SJPD policy, section L 5210 encourages officers to consider alternatives to vehicle impoundment but frames those options as advisory rather than mandatory, relying on the word “should” instead of “shall.” This interpretation stands in direct conflict with established California case law, which limits impoundments to situations where they are truly necessary to protect public safety or prevent a hazard. The decision to tow any vehicle should be based on the totality of circumstances and must be reasonable and in furtherance of public safety.
In evaluating the reasonableness of warrantless vehicle impounds, courts have focused on whether the impoundment was in accordance with the Community Caretaking Doctrine. The following are some examples of when a vehicle may be towed based on the Community Caretaking Doctrine:
• When the vehicle is impeding traffic or jeopardizing public safety and convenience; • When the vehicle is blocking a driveway or crosswalk or otherwise preventing the efficient movement of traffic (vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle);
• When the location of the stopped vehicle may create a public safety hazard (e.g., vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle);
• The validly licensed owner is not immediately available to prevent the immediate and continued unlawful operation of the vehicle.
California courts have consistently held that department policies and local ordinances cannot override constitutional protections. To bring SJPD policy into alignment with legal standards, section L 5210 must be revised to require officers to evaluate and articulate whether an impoundment is necessary for a legitimate community caretaking purpose. This change would close the current policy gap and help prevent unconstitutional vehicle seizures and unnecessary financial burdens on San Jose residents. 2025 AUDIT TOTALS
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
The IPA conducted 172 subject officer interviews with the SJPD Internal Affairs Division.
The office completed 330 fair, thorough, and objective case audits on police misconduct cases.
The IPA investigated and closed 942 allegations of police officer misconduct.
370 Unique SJPD officers were investigated in 2025
In 2025, there were 499 complaints, including policy complaints, non-misconduct concerns, department-initiated complaints and other miscellaneous complaints filed against SJPD.
In 2025, the Office of Independent Police Auditor (IPA) remained deeply engaged in oversight of the San José Police Department, reflecting both the complexity and importance of accountability in modern policing. The IPA coordinated with SJPD’s Internal Affairs Division, ensuring that investigations were grounded in direct dialogue and detailed examination. These audits supported broader efforts to understand patterns and uphold transparency. The data paints a picture of a community actively engaged in oversight, a department under sustained scrutiny, and an oversight body working at scale to reinforce standards of accountability and trust.
27 AUDIT DATA
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
Complaints Received From Citizens In the Past Five Years 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
273
245
224
263
326
From 2021 to 2023, citizen complaints against the police steadily declined from 273 to 224, suggesting possible improvements in community relations or officer conduct. However, that trend reversed sharply in the following years. Citizen Complaints jumped to 263 in 2024 and surged even higher in 2025, reaching 326, the highest in the five-year span.
This recent uptick could reflect renewed public concern, increased willingness to report, or emerging challenges in police-community interactions that warrant closer attention.
In 2025, the IPA received 499 complaints
requiring review. The chart at the right
shows the IPA's work is driven by the
community or the Department’s
allegations of police misconduct, with 374
matters (75%) involving either citizen
conduct complaints or department-issued
complaints.
The IPA received 56 non-misconduct
complaints, which generally involved
concerns about police services,
communication, or issues that did not rise
to misconduct but still require IPA review.
While these matters may not warrant a
misconduct investigation, they provide
valuable insight into community
experiences and expectations.
Conduct Complaints (326) Non-Misconduct Complaints (56) Department-Initiated Investigations (48) Decline to Investigate (35) Other (31) Policy Complaint (3)
Conduct
Complaints
(326)
65.3%
Non-Misconduct
Complaints (56)
11.2%
DepartmentInitiated
Investigations (48)
9.6%
Decline to
Investigate (35)
7%
Other (31)
6.2%
499
Complaints
Received
28 AUDIT DATA
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
IPA Audit Findings
Once a case has been closed by SJPD, the IPA has four options after it reviews and audits a case.
The IPA can agree with findings of the investigation. This occurred 88% of the time in 2025.
The IPA can request the case be reopened and for additional police officers to be interviewed, and for additional allegations to be investigated. If after the investigative work has been completed and the IPA agrees with the findings then the IPA can close the case as “Closed as Agree After Further”. This occurred in 28 cases, or 8% of the time.
In cases where the IPA agrees in principle with the findings but has concerns with a particular police action or statement, the IPA can close the case as “Closed with Concerns”. This finding was reached in 11 cases 3% of the time.
In cases where the IPA and the San Jose Police Department cannot agree on the outcome of a case finding, then the case can be closed as “Disagree”. This occurred 1 time in 2025. 29 Audit Determination In
Investigated Cases
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Audits % Audits % Audits % Audits % Audits % Agree After First Review 179 72% 113 59% 196 70% 256 91% 290 88% Agreed After Futher Action
26 10% 26 13% 15 5% 23 8% 28 8% Closed With Concerns 23 9% 28 15% 46 16% 0 0 11 3% Disagree 22 9% 26 13% 22 8% 3 1 1 0.3 Total Complaints Audited
250 100% 193 100% 279 100% 282 100% 330 100%
AUDIT DATA
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
In the span of just one year, the number of allegations filed against police officers saw a significant increase, revealing both shifting public concerns and potential internal challenges within the force.
The most dramatic rise came in Police Procedure complaints, which jumped from 277 in 2024 to 438 in 2025, an increase of nearly 60%. This sharp climb suggests growing public scrutiny over how officers handle day-to-day operations and possibly reflects increased awareness or dissatisfaction with procedural conduct.
Courtesy-related complaints also rose considerably, from 108 to 144. This category, often tied to how officers interact with the public, hints at concerns over professionalism and respect in community relations.
Allegations of Bias-Based Policing and Arrest/Detention similarly increased—by over 40% and 12%, respectively—indicating sustained attention on fairness and the appropriate use of authority.
Interestingly, Search & Seizure allegations slightly declined, from 72 to 69, suggesting either improved practices in this area or reduced visibility.
Even in less frequent categories, such as Conduct Unbecoming a Police Officer and Loss of Property, the numbers rose, with the former growing by 50% and the latter more than tripling. These shifts, while small in absolute terms, may point to emerging issues that require early intervention.
Together, these numbers tell a story of growing community concerns and stress the importance of consistent oversight, training, and transparency.
ALLEGATIONS RECEIVED
2024 2025
0 100 200 300 400 500
Police Procedure
Courtesy
Bias Based Policing
Arrest/Detention
Search & Seizure
Conduct Unbecoming
Loss of Property
Workplace Harassment
Allegations Received
2024: 742 vs. 2025: 1,034
277
438
108
144
99 139
105
118
72 69
+58%
+33%
+40%
+12%
-4%
18 27
+50%
3 10
+233%
6 5
-17%
30 AUDIT DATA
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
Officer
Years of
Experience
0-1 2-4 5-6 7-10 11-15 16+
Total Number
of Officers
Receiving
Complaints
Number of Complaints
1 Complaint 34 42 46 62 19 38 241
2 Complaints 15 23 21 20 2 7 88
3 Complaints 5 8 8 4 1 1 27
4 Complaints 1 3 1 1 1 2 9
5 Complaints 0 2 1 1 0 0 4
6 Complaints 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 Complaints 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Total Number of
Officers Receiving
Complaints
55 79 77 88 23 48 370
Years
Experience
Subject
Officers
SJPD Sworn
Officers
Percentage
of the
Department
0-1 55 118 46%
2-4 79 152 52%
5-6 77 149 52%
7-10 88 231 38%
11-15 23 102 23%
16 + 48 289 17%
Total 370 1041
The table shows the distribution of complaints by officer experience. A total of 370 officers received complaints in 2025. Officers with 7–10 years of experience received the most complaints overall (88 officers), followed by those with 2–4 years (79) and 5–6 years (77).
Most officers (241) had only one complaint, while 88 had two, and fewer than 30 officers had three or more. Complaints decrease significantly as the number of complaints per officer rises.
However, one officer had 7 complaints.
Officers with 2–6 years of experience
have the highest complaint rates, with
over 50% in each group receiving
complaints.
In contrast, only 17% of officers with 16+
years and 23% with 11–15 years were
subjects of complaints.
Overall, 36% of SJPD officers received at
least one complaint, with mid-career
officers (especially those in their first
decade) disproportionately represented.
Complaints on Department Members
31 AUDIT DATA
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
Sustained
Not Sustained
Exonerated
Unfounded
No Finding
Complaint Withdrawn
Supervisory Review
Other
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
Exonerated
The investigation proved by a preponderance of the evidence the act DID OCCUR, BUT the conduct was justified. Officers can still get required training under this finding.
Unfounded
The investigation proved by a preponderance of evidence the act DID NOT occur.
Sustained
The investigation proved by a preponderance of the evidence the act DID OCCUR and there was no justification. This finding results in disciplinary action.
Not Sustained
The investigation failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence the alleged act occurred.
No Finding
The complainant failed to disclose promised information needed to further the investigation, or the complainant is no longer available for clarification of material issues.
Supervisory Referral
The complaint involves a minor transgression that is best handled by bringing the matter to the officer’s supervising captain.
Complaint Withdrawn
This occurs when the complainant indicates the desire to withdraw their complaint.
When a citizen files a complaint against a police officer, IA investigates and comes to one of eight findings for each allegation identified from the complaint. 542
102
24 150
40 16 38 30
Closed Allegations 2025
Total: 942
Finding Definitions
32 AUDIT DATA
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
The table below shows the distribution of sustained findings against officers by years of experience.
Officers with 2–4 years of experience account for the highest share of sustained findings (31% of officers).
Officers with 5–6 years and 16+ years of experience also have notable shares, at 25% and 20% respectively.
Newer officers (0–1 year) represent 10% of those with sustained findings, while more experienced officers (11–15 years) show the fewest at just 3%.
In total, there were 61 officers with sustained findings, accounting for 102 sustained allegations overall.
Sustained Findings
0-1 2-4 5-6 7-10 11-15 16+
0 5
10 15
20 6
(10%)
19 (31%)
15 (25%)
7 (11%)
2 (3%)
12 (20%)
Officers with Sustained Findings
Years of Experience
Sustained Findings by Officer Experience
(61 officers)
33 Disposition of Allegations
Type of
Dispositions
Number of
Allegations
Percentage of
Allegations
Sustained 102 11%
Not Sustained 24 3%
Exonerated 542 58%
Unfounded 150 16%
No Finding 40 4%
Complaint
Withdrawn
16 2%
Supervisory
Review
38 4%
Other 30 3%
Total
Allegations
942 100%
AUDIT DATA
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
In the cases that were closed in 2025, the IPA investigated 942 separate allegations of police misconduct. Out of these, 102 allegations (11%) were sustained, confirming some wrongdoing or misconduct occurred. In contrast, the largest portion of cases (542) (58%) were exonerated, where the police officer's actions were found to be within policy, highlighting the complexity of policing and the potential for misperception. 150 allegations (16%) were unfounded, showing no factual basis of the allegation occurred. 24 cases (3%) were not sustained, where there was insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the allegation.
Altogether, the data paints a picture of a system actively reviewing complaints, sometimes confirming fault, often clearing actions, and always navigating the gray areas between public expectation and professional conduct.
Out of all 942 allegations, the majority of complaints (74%) were either exonerated or found to be unfounded, while confirmed misconduct (sustained) occurred in just over 1 in 10 cases.
Allegations
34 YEAR
Sustained
DII’s
DII
Sustained
Rate
Sustained
Conduct
Complaints
Sustained
Rate
2021 11 79% 31 12%
2022 25 78% 36 18%
2023 25 78% 74 24%
2024 26 67% 34 14%
2025 34 69% 25 8%
AUDIT DATA
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
From 2021 to 2025, the San José Police Department showed a consistent trend: Department initiated investigations (DIIs) resulted in sustained findings far more often than complaints made by the public.
While the sustained rate for DIIs remained high—between 67% and 79%—the sustained rate for public conduct complaints fluctuated and ultimately declined sharply, from 12% in 2021 to just 8% in 2025.
This growing gap may raise
questions about how public
concerns are addressed compared
to those flagged internally. While
internal accountability appears
strong, the declining sustain rate for
public complaints could impact
trust in the department’s
responsiveness to community
input.
The data suggests an opportunity for the department to examine its public complaint review process and ensure transparency and fairness for both internal and external sources of oversight.
Sustained Cases Between Community
Complaints & Department Initiated Complaints
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
0 20
40 60
80 79% 78% 78%
67% 69% 12%
18%
24%
14% 8%
Growing gap Department Initiated Complaints Community / Conduct Complaints 35 Types of Discipline or Corrective
Actions
Number of
Times
Percentage of All
Discipline
Training 47 42%
Training and/or Counseling 14 13%
All Training or Counseling 61 55%
Documented Oral Counseling
(D.O.C)
25 23%
Letter of Reprimand
(L.O.R.)
9 8%
All DOC & LOR 34 31%
20-Hour Suspension 1 1%
6-Month Suspension 1 1%
Suspension 2 2%
All Suspension 4 4%
Retirement Before Discipline 8 7%
Salary/ Step Reduction 2 2%
Termination 2 2%
Total Discipline Imposed 111 100%
AUDIT DATA
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
Out of 111 total disciplinary actions taken, the overwhelming majority (54%) focused on training or counseling, suggesting an emphasis on corrective education rather than punishment. Specifically, Training alone accounted for 42% of all actions, while combined Training and/or Counseling made up another 13%.
More formal steps, such as Documented Oral Counseling (23%) and Letters of Reprimand (8%), were also used. However, severe consequences were rare: suspensions, salary reductions, terminations, and retirements before discipline collectively made up just 7% of all discipline.
This pattern reflects a departmental preference for guiding officers toward improvement rather than imposing harsh penalties, especially in lower-level misconduct cases.
SJPD Discipline 2025
36 AUDIT DATA
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
Age Complainants
Under 18 2
18-20 10
21-29 59
30-39 71
40-49 72
50-59 51
60-69 26
70-and over 9
Declined/
Unknown
76 Total
Complainants
376
Complainants By Age
Complainants By Gender
Male
63% Female
33%
Decline/Unknown
44.6%
Hispanic
18.4%
White
12.3%
Asian
8.7%
African American
8.1%
Other
7.3%
Complaints Originate IA
63%
IPA
37%
The above graph shows how many citizens filed
their complaint with Internal Affairs instead of
the Office of the Independent Police Auditor.
Demographic Data
37 Complainants By Race
AUDIT DATA
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
Where do Complaints Come From
Complaints
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
District 6
District 7
District 8
District 9
District 10
21 31
116
21 28
54 36
21 20
12 38
How To Read These Figures
The Department-wide total, the non-OIS GBI case set, and the Serious-Force and CriticalIncident total describe different populations. They should not be used interchangeably.
USE OF FORCE & CRITICAL INCIDENTS
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
598
Reported Force Incidents
(29 more than 2024)
5.1%
Year-Over-Year Increase
(Reported as 5% when rounded)
20 Serious Force & Officer Involved
Shootings Cases
(Includes OIS and one in-custody Death)
16 Non-OIS GBI Investigations
3 Officer-Involved Shootings
(Incidents occurring during 2025)
Department wide trends, serious outcomes, and the scope of independent review. 39 USE OF FORCE & CRITICAL INCIDENTS
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
Change in Critical-Incident Oversight During 2025
During the second half of 2025, the Chief of Police temporarily discontinued Internal Affairs (IA) investigators’ response to officer-involved shooting (OIS) scenes. The IPA raised concerns because IA’s prompt response to critical incidents supports effective internal review and provides the IPA with initial information about the incident. The Chief subsequently restored IA’s on-scene response.
Beginning in 2026, the IPA discontinued its practice of automatically responding to every OIS scene. The IPA’s presence provided only an initial briefing; not a scene walk-through or access to officer interviews, body-worn camera footage, or other evidence necessary for meaningful contemporaneous oversight.
Because the same limited briefing can be provided by telephone, the IPA will determine whether an onscene response is warranted based on the circumstances of each incident.
This change is not a retreat from timely oversight. It better aligns office resources with the actual value of an on-scene response, avoids creating the false impression that the IPA receives meaningful contemporaneous access, and underscores the need for earlier access to substantive information.
1. 2025 Use-of-Force Overview
The broader Department-wide picture provides context for the smaller group of incidents involving great bodily injury, officer-involved shootings, and other critical outcomes. SJPD reported 598 use-of-force incidents in 2025, compared with 569 in 2024. The increase of 29 incidents equals approximately 5.1%.
The 2025 total was the fourth consecutive annual increase after the 2021 low. It remained below the 2020 total of 715 incidents, the highest point shown in the seven-year series.
SJPD Use of Force Incidents
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
0 200
400
600
800
548
598
544
467
715
642
569
40 Measure 2025 Count What the number represents
All reported force
incidents
598 Department-wide statistical total reported by SJPD
Non-OIS GBI
Investigations
16 Completed great bodily injury investigations
Officer-Involved
Shooting
3 Shootings involving SJPD officers that occurred during 2025 In Custody Death 1 Critical incident included in the five-year serious case total Serious force and
critical incident
20 Combined trend total consisting of 16 non-OIS GBI cases, three OIS cases, and one in custody death.
USE OF FORCE & CRITICAL INCIDENTS
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
Related complaint measure
SJPD also recorded 48 use-of-force complaint cases initiated in 2025, compared with 33 in 2024.
Complaints are a different unit of count from force incidents. A complaint does not establish that force was improper, and a force incident may occur without a complaint How the 2025 figures fit together
41 Population Information available to the IPA What the information supports Department-wide force statistics
Aggregate totals and trend information
reported by SJPD.
Frequency, year-to-year comparisons, and
identification of areas requiring closer
monitoring.
Most non-GBI force
incidents
Department-wide statistics, without
routine access to the complete underlying
case evidence.
Trend monitoring, but not independent
conclusions concerning individual tactics, deescalation, necessity, or policy compliance.
Completed GBI
investigations
Sixteen completed investigations were
identified for the final reporting set. The
depth of review depends on the timing
and completeness of the evidence
provided.
Case-level analysis of serious outcomes, force
types, recurring facts, investigative quality, and
policy or tactical issues.
EFRC-reviewed
incidents
Command-level review of serious
incidents through the Executive Force
Review Committee process.
Assessment of the Department's review,
findings, tactical analysis, and resulting
corrective action when the complete record is
available.
Officer-involved
shootings
Public community briefings, incident
summaries, and case materials provided
through the critical-incident review
process.
Independent review of the incident and the
Department's conclusions when the completed
record and underlying evidence are provided.
USE OF FORCE & CRITICAL INCIDENTS
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa 42
2. Scope of Review
The IPA receives different levels of information for different categories of force. Aggregate statistics can show frequency and broad change over time. Case-level review requires reports, body-worn camera and other video, interviews, photographs, medical information, and the remaining evidence used by the Department to evaluate the incident.
Measure G expanded the IPA role to include review of serious use-of-force incidents, including great bodily injury, with officer-involved incidents. The practical value of that authority depends on timely access to the complete evidence necessary for substantive review. However, at this point, the IPA has not been provided with timely access for full evidentiary review of GBI cases, such as the body-worn camera or other video footage reviewed by the EFRC.
3. Great Bodily Injury Analysis
Methodology and final case set
This analysis incorporates the 16 completed non-OIS GBI investigations included in the final 2025 reporting set. The cases are examined together to identify recurring incident characteristics, force types, injuries, and operational issues. The synthesis does not replace the separate evaluation of each force action or the formal findings in an individual investigation.
Resistance or noncompliance provides context but does not establish that every force action was reasonable. A serious injury likewise does not establish that force was improper. Each incident must be evaluated on its own facts.
Five-year trend
SJPD recorded 20 serious-force and critical-incident cases in 2025, compared with 15 in 2024. This was the first year-over-year increase after three consecutive annual declines.
Neutral Conclusion
11 of the 16 completed GBI investigations were either provided near the end of our reporting cycle or identified after the initial production.
USE OF FORCE & CRITICAL INCIDENTS
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa 43
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
0 5
10 15
20 19
18 17 15 20
Serious -Force & Critical Incident Cases, 2021-2025
Cases
Year Total Cases Changes from prior year
2021 19 Not Applicable
2022 18 -5%
2023 17 -6%
2024 15 -12%
2025 20 +33%
Analytical area What the 2025 case set shows
Resistance or
noncompliance
All 16 case narratives identify active resistance, flight, refusal of commands, fighting, or other noncompliance during the encounter. This provides context but does not replace review of each individual force action.
Force types
Strikes and takedowns were prominent, appearing in six cases each. Other force included control holds, body weight, conducted-energy devices, 40mm projectiles, chemical agents, batons, an improvised impact object, and canine deployments.
Weapons and
perceived threats
Several incidents involved reported, visible, or suspected weapons, including knives, a machete, a crowbar report, a firearm-related warrant, and movements toward the waistband.
Behavioral-health and
substance factors
Several narratives describe erratic behavior, apparent intoxication, methamphetamine use, possible narcotics ingestion, or crisis-related behavior. These observations are contextual and are not clinical diagnoses.
Serious injuries
Seven of the 16 cases involved confirmed or suspected fractures. Frequently affected areas included the head or skull, face or orbital area, ribs, and spine or vertebrae.
Canine Dog Bites
In 2025, there were six reported canine bites. This represents a slight increase from the five bites reported in 2024, and matches the six reported in 2023, but remains below the nine reported in 2022.
Findings and review
One case resulted in a sustained finding for a knee drop onto a handcuffed subject. The remaining force in that incident was found objectively reasonable, illustrating why each force action must be evaluated separately.
USE OF FORCE & CRITICAL INCIDENTS
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
The serious-case trend includes non-OIS GBI investigations, officer-involved shootings, and in-custody deaths.
Synthesis of the 16 non-OIS GBI Investigations
44 USE OF FORCE & CRITICAL INCIDENTS
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
Recurring policy, tactical, and operational observations Many incidents involved prolonged efforts to gain control after warnings or de-escalation attempts did not produce compliance. Review should distinguish the quality and timing of those efforts from the ultimate need to use force.
Several serious injuries involved the head, face, ribs, or spine. When strikes or impact tools affect vulnerable body areas, case-level review should examine targeting, necessity, proportionality, and available alternatives.
The sustained knee drop in Case 1 demonstrates that a subject's earlier resistance does not make every later force action reasonable, particularly after handcuffing.
Case 6 identified radio failures during a multi-yard search for an armed-robbery suspect.
Communications reliability is an officer-safety and coordination issue independent of the final canine deployment.
Case 7 involved a lengthy sequence of containment, communication, less-lethal projectiles, noiseflash devices, crisis-team involvement, chemical agents, and a canine deployment. The sequence is useful for examining escalation, de-escalation, decision points, and medical response. www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa 45
Incident context and subject conduct Force described Serious injury or 1 Reckless-driving stop; driver resisted and assaulted an officer; passengers refused commands and resisted
detention.
Takedowns, strikes, control
efforts, and a knee drop after
handcuffing.
Bloody nose, facial abrasions, and pain. Knee
drop sustained as unreasonable.
2 Weapons call; subject attempted to retreat, struggled, and reached toward the waistband.
Elbow strikes to the face and
takedown.
Fractured right orbital area and frontal skull
fracture.
3 Erratic behavior in a vehicle; methamphetamine pipe in hand, knife visible; subject resisted and attempted to
grab a Taser.
Physical removal, Taser drivestun, and two closed-fist head strikes.
Fractured ribs. 4
Restraining-order violation and property damage;
subject resisted handcuffing.
Two closed-fist strikes and
takedown.
Eye pain and swelling; a possible brain bleed
was reported but not verified in the reports.
5 Reported assault on a woman; subject refused
commands and punched an officer.
Closed-fist and knee strikes,
control holds, and body
weight.
Two fractured vertebrae. 6
Armed-robbery warrant; subject fled through multiple
yards and attempted to climb a fence after warnings.
Noise-flash devices and canine
deployment.
Puncture wounds to the shoulder and lower
back, lacerations, and scratches.
7 Robbery-associated vehicle; pursuit terminated for
safety; later containment followed repeated refusals
and apparent narcotics ingestion.
40mm rounds to the rear
window, noise-flash devices,
crisis-team contact, OC agents,
canine deployment, and
physical extraction.
Head punctures requiring staples, arm
scratch, and knee abrasion.
8 Stolen-vehicle flight exceeding 100 mph; subject later ignored commands, reached toward the waistband, and
appeared positioned to flee.
Body-weight shoulder
takedown and control.
Fractured fibula. 9
Subject matched a rock-throwing description, appeared
intoxicated, reached toward the waistband, and fought
officers.
Takedowns, leg strike, baton
thrusts and strikes, and
punches.
Fractured rib. 10 Naked and blood-covered subject destroyed hotel property, resisted de-escalation, charged, and fought
officers.
Taser, 40mm projectiles, patiochair takedown, punch, and kick.
Two fractured ribs. 11 Machete and knife incident; subject fled, slashed at officers, and stabbed an officer.
Baton strike to the head and
repeated baton strikes to the
hands to disarm.
Officer suffered a stab wound. The subject
injury was not specified in the case
summary.
12 Street argument; subject discarded an item, fled,
resisted, and injured officers.
Push to prevent escape,
takedowns, and strikes.
Broken right orbital area, lacerations, and
bleeding.
USE OF FORCE & CRITICAL INCIDENTS
Comparative case table
The table allows readers to compare all 16 non-OIS Great Bodily Injury investigations side by side. Edited narratives are included at the end of this chapter.
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
46 Incident context and subject conduct Force described Serious injury or key outcome 13 Subject allegedly fired a gun toward his spouse, refused to surrender, displayed a firearm to police officers, and repeatedly asked officers to shoot him.
40mm rounds, CS gas, and
canine deployment
Canine bite to the right forearm.
14 Parking dispute involving an alleged screwdriver
stabbing; subject retreated into his trailer, refused to surrender, and remained barricaded after repeated
warnings.
Canine deployment
Canine bite producing puncture wounds to
the right forearm.
15 Homicide suspect refused callouts and attempted to flee through a backyard; ignored commands to remain on
the ground and began to stand after canine warnings.
Noise-flash diversionary devices
and canine deployment.
Lacerations and puncture wounds to right
forearm consistent with a canine bite.
16 Commercial burglary subject was observed breaking
through drywall into an adjoining business, retreated
inside, and ignored repeated announcements and canine
warnings.
Noise-flash diversionary
devices and canine deployment
Canine bite to left thigh.
USE OF FORCE & CRITICAL INCIDENTS
Comparative case table continued
The table allows readers to compare the 16 non-OIS Great Bodily Injury investigations side by side. Edited narratives are included at the end of this chapter.
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
47 Field Information Field Information
Date January 20, 2025 Time 10:38 pm
Location Melbourne / McLaughlin Ave Council District 3
Race of Subject (s) Hispanic Gender of Subject (s) Male Age of Subject (s) 21, 21, 22, 37 Subject Armed ? Yes- Handgun Prior Convictions Yes Call of Service? None
Number of
Officers Who Fired
1 Deceased or Injured None
Involved
Officer(s) Experience
Officer 1: 6.5 years
Officer 2: 4 years
USE OF FORCE & CRITICAL INCIDENTS
4. Officer-Involved Shootings
SJPD reported three officer-involved shootings in 2025. The following summaries describe the reported incident sequence and provide links to the Department's public community briefings. These summaries are not independent findings concerning legality, policy compliance, or tactics. Of the three cases, the IPA was provided access only to OIS 1 because that investigation was closed during the year. The other two investigations remain open, and the IPA therefore does not yet have access to their case materials.
Plainclothes Metro officers were returning from an unrelated surveillance assignment when they observed a vehicle being driven erratically. After an exchange at a traffic signal, the officers followed the vehicle and reported suspicious circumstances. The vehicle later returned toward the officers, and a rear passenger fired approximately four to five rounds as it passed. Police gunfire was directed toward the armed subject. Days later, all four occupants were arrested.
View the SJPD Community Briefing concerning this shooting.
OIS 1: January 20, 2025
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
48 Field Information Field Information
Date July 6, 2025 Time 2:24 pm
Location Recife Way Council District 10
Race of Subject Caucasian Gender of Subject Male
Mental Health Yes Age of Subject 37
Subject Armed ? Yes Multiple Firearms Prior Convictions Yes Call of Service? Family Disturbance
Number of
Officers Who Fired
1 Deceased or Injured Yes, Deceased
Involved
Officer(s) Experience
Officer 1: 8 Years
USE OF FORCE & CRITICAL INCIDENTS
Officers responded to a family disturbance involving a 37-year-old man in a reported mental-health crisis who had stopped taking medication and had become violent. The subject pointed a long gun at officers, who retreated and attempted to communicate with him by telephone. The subject later fired at officers and moved into a rear yard while armed with a shotgun and rifle. An exchange of gunfire occurred. The subject was eventually pronounced deceased at the scene. This case remains open and has not been sent to the IPA for review.
View the SJPD Community Briefing concerning this shooting.
OIS 2: July 6, 2025
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
49 Field Information Field Information
Date July 13, 2025 Time 3:23 pm
Location Cataldi Park Council District 4
Race of Subject White Gender of Subject Male
Age of Subject 48 Mental Health Yes
Subject Armed ? Yes - Kitchen Knife Prior Convictions None Call of Service? Aggravated Assault
Number of Officers Who
Fired
2 Deceased or Injured Yes
Involved
Officer(s) Experience
Officer 1: 4.5 years
Officer 2: 19 years
USE OF FORCE & CRITICAL INCIDENTS
Officers responded to a father's report that his son had been stabbed. Officers found the caller hunched over the injured child while holding a large bloody kitchen knife. Officers attempted de-escalation, but the subject refused commands and stated that he wanted officers to shoot him. Before a less-lethal option could be deployed, the subject stood up with the knife raised and charged at the officers. Two officers fired, killing the subject. Officers then learned that the child was already deceased. This case remains open and has not been sent to the IPA for review.
View the SJPD Community Briefing concerning this shooting.
OIS 3: July 13, 2025
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
50 USE OF FORCE & CRITICAL INCIDENTS
Recommendation 8 proposes a written, accountable process requiring SJPD to provide the IPA with every completed great bodily injury use-of-force investigation and officer-involved incident investigation within 30 days of a final decision. The recommendation also calls for full access, as permitted by law, to the evidence necessary for substantive review, including reports, body-worn camera and other video, photographs, interviews, and other materials collected or relied upon during the investigation.
Aggregate statistics are useful for identifying trends, but they cannot substitute for the underlying evidence needed to evaluate individual incidents, the Department's findings, and the quality of the review process.
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa
5. Related IPA Recommendation
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
Cross Reference
See Recommendation 8, Timely Production and Full Evidentiary Access for Great Bodily Injury and OfficerInvolved Shooting Investigations. 51 2025 GREAT BODILY INJURY CASE
SUMMARIES
GBI Case 1: Vehicle stop and post-handcuff force
Officers stopped a pickup truck after observing reckless driving. The driver exited and resisted handcuffing, assaulting an officer. Passengers left the vehicle and refused commands to return, leading officers to detain them. Takedowns and strikes were used during the struggle. After the driver was handcuffed, an officer dropped a knee onto the driver's back, causing pain. The knee drop was found unreasonable and resulted in a sustained administrative finding. The remainder of the force was found objectively reasonable. Reported injuries included a bloody nose, facial abrasions, and pain complaints. www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa
The following edited summaries preserve the substantive incident sequence while reducing repetition. They should be read with the comparative table and the formal investigative findings for each case.
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
GBI Case 2: Weapons call and facial fractures
Officers responded to a report that a neighbor had brandished a knife and a stick. The subject refused an officer's direction to come forward and attempted to run back into a residence. During the struggle, the subject turned and reached toward their waistband. The officer used elbow strikes to the face and forced the subject to the ground. The subject sustained fractures to the right orbital area and frontal skull.
GBI Case 3: Vehicle extraction, Taser, and strikes
Two officers contacted a person acting erratically inside a vehicle in a dimly lit parking lot. The subject yelled and spat at an officer. A methamphetamine pipe was seen in the subject's hand, and a large knife was visible on the passenger seat. Officers removed the subject from the vehicle. The subject resisted, and an officer used a Taser in drive-stun mode. When the subject attempted to grab the Taser, the officer struck the subject twice in the head with closed fists. The subject was taken into custody and later found to have fractured ribs.
GBI Case 4: Restraining-order violation investigation
Officers responded to a family disturbance involving a restraining-order violation and reported property damage with a crowbar. The subject had left before officers arrived. An officer later located the subject at another location. The subject did not comply with commands, tensed, and resisted handcuffing. After multiple warnings, the officer delivered two closed-fist strikes to the right side of the face and used a takedown. The subject complained of eye pain and swelling. A physician reported a possible brain bleed, but the condition was not verified in the reports. 52 GBI Case 5: Assault call and spinal fractures
Officers responded to reports that a man was threatening and striking a woman on the ground. Officers saw the subject holding the victim down and directed him to release her. The subject refused, resisted officers, and punched an officer in the face. Officers used closed-fist and knee strikes to the torso, control holds, and body weight to gain control. The subject tested positive for methamphetamine and sustained two fractured vertebrae.
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
GBI Case 6: Armed-robbery warrant and canine deployment Canine officers assisted a MERGE operation serving a warrant for an armed-robbery suspect. The firearm used in the robbery had not been recovered. Officers broadcast surrender instructions and a canine warning. The subject fled through multiple backyards while officers encountered radio failures in the area. After the subject ignored three additional canine warnings and ran toward a six-foot fence, an officer deployed a police canine. The subject was taken into custody and sustained puncture wounds to the shoulder and lower back, along with lacerations and scratches.
GBI Case 7: Vehicle containment and canine deployment
Officers initially contacted a vehicle associated with a robbery. The driver fled at high speed and drove against traffic, prompting termination of the pursuit for safety reasons. Officers later located and contained the vehicle. The subject repeatedly refused commands and requested to be struck with a less-lethal projectile. Officers used extended communication attempts, 40mm projectiles directed at the rear window, noise-flash devices, Mobile Crisis Assessment Team contact, OC vapor, and OC spray.
When those efforts were ineffective and officers believed the subject presented a continuing threat, a police canine was deployed into the vehicle. The canine contacted the back of the subject's head and upper arm and was promptly recalled. Officers then removed the resisting subject. Reported injuries included head punctures requiring staples, an arm scratch, and a knee abrasion.
GBI Case 8: Stolen-vehicle flight and takedown
Officers observed a stolen vehicle and attempted a traffic stop. The vehicle fled at speeds exceeding 100 miles per hour and was tracked by a police helicopter. When officers later confronted the occupants, one person discarded an item. A subject ignored commands, walked backward, reached toward their waistband, and assumed a position that an officer believed indicated another attempt to flee. The officer used their body weight and a shoulder to take the subject to the ground. The subject resisted until officers applied handcuffs and sustained a fractured fibula. 53 2025 GREAT BODILY INJURY CASE
SUMMARIES
GBI Case 9: Intoxication, resistance, and impact weapons Officers searched for a person reported to be throwing rocks and bottles at vehicles. They located a subject matching the description who appeared intoxicated and refused to cooperate. As officers attempted to stand and detain the subject, the subject reached toward their waistband and fought them. Officers used a takedown, a strike to the leg, baton thrusts and strikes, and punches to the face and body before gaining control. The subject was transported to a hospital and diagnosed with a fractured rib.
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
GBI Case 10: Hotel disturbance and prolonged struggle
Officers responded to a hotel where a naked, blood-covered subject was destroying property and throwing items from the roof. The subject refused de-escalation attempts and moved to the lobby level.
Taser deployments and three 40mm rounds were ineffective. The subject charged officers with clenched fists. An officer used a patio chair to strike and take the subject to the ground. The subject continued fighting, scratched an officer, and placed bloody fingers in the officer's mouth. Another officer punched the subject, and a kick to the rib area helped officers gain control. The subject was later diagnosed with two fractured ribs.
GBI Case 11: Knife attack and officer stabbing
Officers responded to a Target store after security reported that a person had brandished a machete.
Outside the store, the subject ignored commands and later armed himself with a knife, making slashing motions at an officer before fleeing. During the struggle, the subject stabbed an officer in the bicep. A second officer used a baton strike to the head and then strikes to the subject's hands to dislodge the knife. After the subject picked the knife up again, additional strikes to the hand caused the subject to release it. Officers then took the subject into custody.
GBI Case 12: Foot pursuit and orbital fracture
Two officers observed an argument. One subject discarded an item and ran when contacted. An officer pushed the subject to prevent escape, causing the subject to fall from the curb into a police vehicle. The subject resisted and injured both officers. Officers used takedowns and strikes to gain control. The subject sustained a broken right orbital area, lacerations, and bleeding. 54 2025 GREAT BODILY INJURY CASE
SUMMARIES
2025 GBI CASE SUMMARIES
GBI Case 13: Armed domestic violence standoff and canine apprehension Officers were called out for reported domestic violence and attempted murder. The suspect was in an argument with his spouse and shot a firearm in her direction. When police arrived, the suspect refused to surrender. The suspect would repeatedly exit his third-floor apartment and tell officers multiple times he wanted them to shoot him. The suspect had a small firearm in his right pocket and would pull it out while keeping it to his side. Canine warnings were given to the suspect, and the suspect refused to listen to the commands. The suspect was struck with 40mm OC rounds which did not have an effect.
After a warrant was acquired CS gas was used to fill the apartment. An officer directed his dog to locate the suspect in the apartment. The suspect was found lying on the ground in the living room and the canine bit his right forearm. The canine was recalled and officers took the suspect into custody. www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
GBI Case 14: Screwdriver assault, barricade, and canine deployment A fight involving a weapon occurred at a mobile home park, where the suspect was in physical fight with his neighbor over a parking dispute. The suspect stabbed the victim in the hand with a screwdriver and fled back into his trailer. When police arrived, they set a perimeter around the trailer, and officers discovered the suspects’ history of violent crimes and threats. The victim told officers he thinks the suspect had a gun inside the trailer. Canine officers were requested, and canine warnings were given via the public address (PA) system. The suspect refused to exit. The suspect’s wife was still inside the house and was convinced to leave after speaking with police on the phone. A search and Ramey Warrant were acquired, and a canine was sent into the trailer to locate the suspect. The canine found the suspect under a large pile of clothing, biting the suspect on his right forearm. The canine was pulled back, and officers took the suspect into custody.
GBI Case 15: Homicide suspect flight and canine deployment Canine officers were requested to assist with the MERGE unit serving a warrant for a suspect wanted for a homicide. Officers conducted a surround and call out, and canine warnings were given, but the suspect ignored the commands. A SJPD drone spotted the suspect attempting to flee through the backyard. Officers threw flashbangs to re-direct the suspect to the front yard, but he ignored them and jumped over a fence. The canine officer and other officers saw the suspect land in the backyard they were positioned in. One officer told the suspect to stay on the ground four times and to show them his hands. The canine officer gave warnings not to stand up, or the canine would be released. The suspect started to stand up, and the canine officer released their canine. The suspect was bit on his right forearm by the canine and was then taken into custody.
55 2025 GBI CASE SUMMARIES
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
GBI Case 16: Commercial burglary and canine deployment
Officers responded to a report of a burglary, the reporting party observed the suspect inside the store via live video feed. When officers arrived, they heard loud banging sound on one of the businesses doors. Through the window, officers witnessed the suspect kicking through the drywall to an adjoining business. When officers shined their flashlights at the suspect he retreated into the liquor store.
Officers surrounded the store and gave announcements which were ignored. Canine announcements were made as well. Flashbangs were deployed and the suspect refused to exit. The canine officer used his dog to search the interior of the store, and the canine found the suspect hiding in the storage area of the store. The suspect was then taken into custody.
56 Council District No. of Connections 1 44 2 247
3 1,575 4 164 5 2,184 6 64 7 317
8 800 9 22 10 40 Internet / Other 47
Total 5,504 www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
Community outreach and engagement remained a major focus for the Office of the Independent Police Auditor (IPA) in 2025. Throughout the year, staff reached residents in all ten City Council districts by attending community meetings, delivering presentations, and tabling at resource fairs and other community events. The Independent Police Auditor and Assistant Auditor also met regularly with councilmembers and their staff, ensuring City leaders remained informed about the work of the office.
Although outreach was conducted throughout the City of San José, the majority of efforts continued to focus on communities of color, youth, and communities that have historically experienced disproportionate policing. The goals of outreach remain consistent: to empower residents with information about their rights, listen to community concerns, and strengthen relationships with trusted community partners.
Community Engagement
The IPA continued to operate with limited staffing throughout 2025. In addition, funding dedicated to outreach was
significantly reduced. These budget constraints have already had a noticeable impact on the office's ability to engage with the community.
Outreach In 2025
For example, in 2024 the IPA was able to secure a table at Silicon Valley Pride, where staff connected with more than 600 community members. In 2025, however, insufficient funding prevented the office from participating. Likewise, as outreach materials continue to be depleted, there are no available funds to replenish supplies. Without additional resources, these limitations will likely reduce both the number of outreach events the office can attend and the number of San José residents it can reach in 2026.
IPA COMMUNITY OUTREACH 2025
In 2024, the IPA made just over 6,800 individual outreach contacts. In 2025, the office reached approximately 5,500 residents. Much of this decrease can be attributed to the inability to participate in Silicon Valley Pride (approximately 600 contacts in 2024) and the loss of the opportunity to present at Independence High School, where more than 1,100 students were reached in 2024.
57 IPA COMMUNITY OUTREACH 2025
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
Despite these challenges, city-sponsored events continued to play an essential role in the IPA's outreach efforts. Because most of these events did not require participation fees, they provided valuable opportunities to engage with residents throughout the city. At District 5's Cinco de Mayo celebration, the IPA reached more than 1,100 community members. Similarly, participation in the Parks, Recreation and Neighborhood Services Department's Viva Parks events enabled staff to connect with more than 1,100 additional residents.
Outreach Continued
Community partners also continued to host well-attended events that brought together the communities they serve, providing valuable opportunities for outreach. The IPA has one staff member who serves as the primary coordinator for community outreach and engagement; however, every member of the office participated in outreach activities during 2025, reflecting the office's shared commitment to community engagement.
58 The effectiveness of the IPA's outreach efforts continued to depend heavily on the strength of both longstanding and newly developed community partnerships. Longstanding partners include the NAACP, the City of San José Parks, Recreation and Neighborhood Services Department, ConXión to Community, La Raza Roundtable, the Black Leadership Kitchen Cabinet, City Council district offices, neighborhood associations, and many others. New partnerships established in 2025 include the School of Arts and Culture at Mexican Heritage Plaza, Grace Community, CARAS, the San José Peace and Justice Center, and additional community organizations.
Community Connections
These relationships are invaluable because community partners are trusted, well-established resources within the neighborhoods they serve. By collaborating with these organizations and earning the trust of their staff and volunteers, the IPA is better positioned to engage meaningfully with the thousands of residents they reach. Building and sustaining these partnerships requires consistent communication, repeated engagement, and reliable participation in meetings and community events. Maintaining dedicated outreach staff and sufficient outreach materials is essential to preserving these important relationships.
While educating the community remains a central component of the IPA's mission, listening to the community is equally important. In that spirit, re-establishing the Independent Police Auditor Advisory Committee (IPAAC) became a significant priority in 2025. Planning and recruitment efforts began in earnest, laying the groundwork for the committee's return. www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
IPA COMMUNITY OUTREACH 2025
59 Looking ahead, the IPA is now fully staffed, positioning the office to significantly expand its outreach efforts while continuing to fulfill its auditing responsibilities. Staff will be able to strengthen existing community partnerships, establish new relationships, and increase the office's presence throughout San José. Despite ongoing budget challenges, the office is well positioned to increase both the impact and effectiveness of its outreach efforts, ensuring more residents are informed, engaged, and connected to the services of the IPA.
Looking Forward
Moving Violations Equipment Violations Non Moving Violations Moving Violations
57.7%
Equipment Violations
35.4%
Non Moving Violations
6.9%
RIPA DATA SETS
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
RIPA stands for the Racial and Identity Profiling Act. This law requires California law enforcement agencies to collect specific information about the discretionary stops officers make. Police departments throughout California are required to submit the data to the Department of Justice (“DOJ”). The DOJ compiles all the stop data. The data is available to the public a year after the reporting year. Thus, the data for 2025 will not be available until the end of 2026. The data for 2024 is currently available. The numbers below are taken from the RIPA data of 2024.
In 2024, SJPD reported conducting traffic stops on 20,206 motorists. SJPD conducted searches in 2,427 traffic stops. In those searches, SJPD confiscated firearm 17 times or 0.7 percent of searches. 20, 206
Traffic Stops
Traffic Stops
20,206
Searches Conducted
2,427
Firearms Confiscated
17 12% of stops searched
0.7% of searches yielded a firearm
Hispanic
White
Asian
Black
Middle Eastern
Pacific Islander
Biracial
Native American
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
55%
11,156
16.4%
3,321
15%
3,024
0.6%
128
6.2%
1,244
6%
1,203 0.6%
122
0.0%
8 Traffic Stops by Race RIPA (20,206 total) 60
11,654
7,149
1,402
IPA ORG CHART
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
Eddie Aubrey
Independent Police
Auditor
Dwight White
Assistant Police Auditor
Vivian Do
Senior Analyst
Catherine McBain
Senior Analyst
Frank Myhre-Nunes
Analyst II
Rocio Solis
Office Specialist II
Vacant
Position
Changes To Staff
In 2025, Catherine McBain was promoted from Analyst II to Senior Analyst in recognition of her outstanding service, experience, and continued contributions to the IPA.
61 This chart reflects the IPA office in 2025
Category
Amount
Budgeted
2024-2025
Amount
Budgeted
2025-2026
Salaries/Benefits 1,619,391 1,638,483
Overtime 1,000 1,000
NonPersonal/Equipment 25,072 25,858
Total $1,645,463 $1,665,341
Budgeted Positions
Title
No. of
Positions
Independent
Police Auditor
1 Assistant Police
Auditor
1 Analyst 4
Office
Specialist
1 Item
Amount Budgeted
2024-2025
Amount Budgeted
2025-2026
Supplies / Materials $4,959 4,959
Communication Expenses $3,175 3,175
Postage 414 414
Printing & Advertising $3,549 3,857
Rental Equipment $4,353 4,831
Transportation $50 50
Training $3,892 3,892
Mileage Reimbursement $700 700
Dues & Subscriptions $3,440 3,440
Professional Consultant Services $540 540
Total $25,072.00 $25,858
IPA BUDGET 2025
www.sanjoseca.gov/ipa
OIPA 2025 YEAR END REPORT
62