To: Mayor and City Council
From: Derek Devermont, Chair of the Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission
Subject: Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission Annual Update In February 2020, Council voted to create the Santa Monica Public Safety Reform and Oversight Commission (PSROC). PSROC was designed to provide civilian oversight of SMPD and to evaluate how the city approaches law enforcement. Since its inception, PSROC has created numerous committees, held multiple hearings, and submitted six reports to Council, two of which are attached to this memo. These reports were authored by either the Commission or the Commission's Inspector General (IG).
These reports addressed the following:
1) SMPD's response to the OIR 5/31/2020 report-Commission Authored 2) SMPD's complaints process-Commission Authored
3) SMPD policy surrounding and use of bodycam technology-Commission Authored 4) SMPD's possession and use of military equipment pursuant to AB 481-Commission Authored
5) OIR report on SMPD's progress in implementing IG proposed reforms-IG Authored 6) OIR audit of SMPD complaint process-IG authored
This memo will focus on a few of these topics.
POLICIES AND USE OF BODYCAM TECHNOLOGY
SMPD uses impressive bodycam technology. Perhaps most impressive is how a single officer activating his camera will start the cameras of other officers in the area. This prevents officers, intentionally or unintentionally, from failing to activate their cameras.
PSROC proposed reforms to remove undue officer discretion regarding what is recorded. The Commission heard from officers that they are trained to decide when to turn a camera off in situations involving witnesses or victims. PSROC feels this discretion should be eliminated.
SMPD responds with a genuine and valid concern for the privacy of witnesses and victims. This privacy, however, is already protected under current law. Cases involving sex crimes, minors, etc., are not subject to public record requests. Additionally, such footage is usually subject to a court's protective order preventing the distribution of protected materials.
PSROC also learned prosecutors prefer to have witness/victim interviews recorded. With the passage of time, memories fade and become warped. Bodycam footage refreshes the memory of those that would testify and prevents inconsistencies that defense lawyers will use. As court cases drag on, a preserved video record prevents the downfalls of time.
There are instances when an officer should not have his camera running (bathroom breaks, interacting with family, etc.), but PSROC feels the cameras should be running absent these circumstances.
PSROC offers drafts of reports to SMPD for input. SMPD wrote a written response to PSROC's report on bodycams and submitted it to Council. It is important to note they responded to a PSROC draft never submitted to Council. Instead, SMPD replied to an initial PSROC draft provided solely for input. The final PSROC draft submitted to the Council addressed many of SMPD's concerns.
COMPLAINTS
PSROC had many hearings on SMPD's complaint process. Council was provided a report with the Commission's findings. The work done in this area shows how SMPD and PSROC working together can benefit the city.
In PSROC's hearings, it was discovered SMPD lacked a record-keeping/tracking system for complaints that were handled informally or quickly dismissed by a supervisor. If an intended complainer was turned away by an officer, a record was not kept of the interaction nor the attempt to file a complaint. The absence of a system prevented effective auditing and oversight.
To SMPD's credit, they have acknowledged the gap and taken great strides to fill it. SMPD has acquired new software that will track every complaint and ensure interested parties within the department and outside are notified of progress. Additionally, all complainers will be provided a form with a reference number to draft their complaints. Once completed, the complainer is provided a copy of the form for future reference,
SMPD and PSROC worked together in this specific circumstance, and the community benefitted.
PSROC still believes areas of concern remain. The Commission tasked the IG with auditing ten complaints to see if they were processed and adjudicated in a manner that was fair to the complainer, the community, AND THE OFFICER. It is important to note that many of the audited complaints were received under the leadership of a previous Chief of Police.
The IG wrote a report, attached to this memo, and found areas of concern. PSROC found the time taken to process complaints to be inexcusably long. Most took ten months or longer.
Witnesses and complainers were only contacted then. As a result, the potential for faded memories, interest, and loss of contact with relevant parties increases exponentially.
Also, relevant evidence was not obtained or kept in the file. Video footage, pictures, and other records were inexplicably left out of the file preventing an accurate audit of the fairness of SMPD's conclusions.
Perhaps most troubling is the limiting of the scope of the complaint. If an investigator found misconduct by another officer not initially subject to the complaint during the investigation of a complaint, no additional action was taken to hold the malfeasant officer accountable. A glaring example is in the report of a seemingly intentional attempt to hide the use of force by filing it inappropriately in an area where no one would notice. When it was discovered the use of force wasn't filed as a "use of force," the officer who errored was not held accountable.
AB 481-POSSESSION AND USE OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT
In response to Council's referral, PSROC investigated SMPD's possession and use of military equipment. Commissioner Angela Scott and Vice Chair Centeno jointly wrote a report that found possession of all AB 481 equipment in SMPD's arsenal appropriate.
Of particular concern was the famous "Bearcat." This is an intimidating vehicle, and the Commission questioned whether a less militaristic alternative could serve the purpose and function of the bearcat. It was discovered that alternative vehicles would cost twice as much as the bearcat, require an additional vehicle, and couldn't provide the medical services of the bearcat. SMPD was forthright and responsive.
MAY 31, 2020 OIR REPORT
Recently, the IG was tasked with auditing SMPD's progress in implementing the recommended reforms found in the previous OIR 5/31/2020 report. Some recommended reforms were implemented, progress was made on implementing more, and some still needed to be satisfactory. The IG report is attached to this memo.
CONCLUSION
Recommendations: Council should direct the City Manager to work with SMPD to:
1. Eliminate officer discretion in the use of body cams when witnesses who are victims to a crime are involved.
2. Implement all proposed reforms proposed in the Inspector General’s report on complaints and processes.
3. Require all complaint investigations to be processed, investigated, and brought to completion within 90 days.
4. Require all SMPD officer misconduct be investigated fully irrespective of how the misconduct is discovered.
5. Implement all recommendations in the OIR Group’s After Action Report concerning the events of May 2020.
PSROC looks forward to making a presentation on 11/15/2022 and will be open to answering any questions. Please feel free to contact me in advance should a concern arise.
Derek Devermont
Chair-PSROC