City of South Pasadena Page 1
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Evelyn G. Zneimer
ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Evelyn G. Zneimer
Mayor Pro Tem Jack Donovan
Councilmember Jon Primuth
Councilmember Michael A. Cacciotti
Councilmember Janet Braun
ROLL CALL OF PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMISSION:
Chair Walter Cervantes
Vice Chair Armando Munoz
Commissioner Amin Al-Sarraf
Commissioner Ed Donnelly
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
AND THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 2024, AT 6:00 P.M.
AMEDEE O. “DICK” RICHARDS JR. COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1424 MISSION STREET, SOUTH PASADENA, CA 91030
South Pasadena City Council Statement of Civility
As your elected governing board, we will treat each other, members of the public, and City employees with patience, civility, and courtesy as a model of the same behavior we wish to reflect in South Pasadena for the conduct of all City business and community participation. The decisions made tonight will be for the benefit of the South Pasadena community and not for personal gain.
NOTICE ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION & ACCESSIBILITY
The South Pasadena City Council Meeting will be conducted in-person from the Amedee O. “Dick” Richards, Jr. Council Chambers, located at 1424 Mission Street, South Pasadena, CA 91030.
Public participation may be made as follows:
• In Person – Council Chambers, 1424 Mission Street, South Pasadena, CA 91030 • Live Broadcast via the City website –
http://www.spectrumstream.com/streaming/south_pasadena/live.cfm • Via Zoom – Webinar ID: 825 9999 2830
• Written Public Comment – written comment must be submitted by 12:00 p.m. the day of the meeting by emailing to [email protected]. • Via Phone – +1-669-900-6833 and entering the Zoom Meeting ID listed above.
Meeting may be viewed at:
1. Go to the Zoom website, https://zoom.us/join and enter the Zoom Meeting information; or
2. Click on the following unique Zoom meeting link:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/82599992830 or
3. By calling: +1-669-900-6833 and entering the Zoom Meeting ID listed above; and viewing the meeting via http://www.spectrumstream.com/streaming/south_pasadena/live.cfm Special Joint Meeting Agenda March 20, 2024
Commissioner Bethesda Gee
Commissioner Marcos Holguin
Commissioner Dr. Charley Lu
PUBLIC COMMENT GUIDELINES
The City Council welcomes public input. Members of the public may comment on the agendized items only. Members of the public will have three minutes to address the City Council, however, the Mayor and City Council may adjust the time allotted, as needed.
Public Comments received in writing will not be read aloud at the meeting, but will be part of the meeting record. Written public comments will be uploaded to the City website for public viewing under Additional Documents. When submitting a public comment, please make sure to include the following:
1) Name (optional), and
2) Agenda item you are submitting public comment on.
3) Submit by no later than 12:00 p.m., on the day of the City Council meeting. Correspondence received after this time will be distributed the following business day.
PLEASE NOTE: The Mayor may exercise the Chair's discretion, subject to the approval of the majority of the City Council, to adjust public comment time limit to less than three minutes, as needed.
Pursuant to State law, the City Council may not discuss or take action on issues not on the meeting agenda, except that members of the City Council or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising public testimony rights (Government Code Section 54954.2).
Staff may be asked to follow up on such items.
PUBLIC COMMENT
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
Public Comment will be limited to three minutes per speaker for the agendized items only.
2. RECEIVE AND DISCUSS THE RACIAL AND IDENTITY PROFILING ACT OF 2015, ASSEMBLY BILL 953, AND ARREST DATA AS IT PERTAINS TO THE SOUTH PASADENA
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council receive and discuss the Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) of 2015, Assembly Bil 953 (AB 953), and arrest data as it pertains to the South Pasadena Police Department.
ADJOURNMENT
FOR YOUR INFORMATION
FUTURE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
ACTION/DISCUSSION
April 17, 2024 Regular City Council Meeting 7:00 P.M.
May 1, 2024 Regular City Council Meeting 7:00 P.M.
May 15, 2024 Regular City Council Meeting 7:00 P.M.
Special Joint Meeting Agenda March 20, 2024
PUBLIC ACCESS TO AGENDA DOCUMENTS AND BROADCASTING OF MEETINGS City Council meeting agenda packets, any agenda related documents, and additional documents are available online for public viewing on the City’s website:
https://www.southpasadenaca.gov/government/city-council-meetings/2024-council-meetings
ACCOMMODATIONS
The City of South Pasadena wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public. If special assistance is needed to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Division at (626) 403-7230 or [email protected]. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II).
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING
I declare under penalty of perjury that I posted this notice of agenda for the meeting to be held on March 20, 2024, on the bulletin board in the courtyard of City Hall located at 1414 Mission Street, South Pasadena, CA 91030, and on the City website as required by law, on the date listed below. 03/14/2024 /S/
Date Mark Perez, Deputy City Clerk 9
City Council
Agenda Report ITEM NO. ___
DATE: March 20, 2024
FROM: Arminé Chaparyan, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Brian Solinsky, Chief of Police
Tanya Brittin, Police Clerk II
SUBJECT: Receive and Discuss the Racial and Identity Profiling Act of 2015, Assembly Bill 953, and Arrest Data as it Pertains to the South Pasadena Police Department
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council receive and discuss the Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) of 2015, Assembly Bil 953 (AB 953), and arrest data as it pertains to the South Pasadena Police Department.
Executive Summary
In 2015, the State of California passed AB 953, known as RIPA. This act requires law enforcement agencies to collect perceived demographic data from specified police contacts.
According to the California Code of Regulations (11 CCR § 999.224) RIPA stop data must be collected during police contacts according to the following criteria: “1. Any detention, as defined above in these regulations, by a peace officer of a person; or 2. Any peace officer interaction with a person in which the officer conducts a search as defined in these regulations.” The RIPA stop data requirement does not only apply to traffic stops, but to calls for service, consensual contacts, and non-enforcement related community events as well.
Background
The purpose of RIPA is to prohibit racial and identity profiling by law enforcement by requiring state and local law enforcement agencies, as specified, to collect data regarding stops of individuals (stop data). It also requires all state and local law enforcement agencies to report data to the California Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of the Attorney General on:
a) All vehicle and pedestrian stops
b) Citizen complaints alleging racial and identity profiling. 4c,-.
2 2 - 1
Racial and Identity Profiling Act of 2015, Assembly Bill 953 March 20, 2024
Lastly, it establishes a Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory (RIPA) Board which consists of 19 members who are spiritual leaders, community advocates, academics, attorneys, and members of law enforcement to:
a) Analyze the stop data and the civilian complaint data annually. b) Work with law enforcement to review racial and identity profiling policies and practices.
c) Review law enforcement training.
d) Issue an annual report that details the data findings and provides policy recommendations and best practices to law enforcement for eliminating profiling in California.
To comply with RIPA, the South Pasadena Police Department began collecting stop data on January 1st, 2022, submitting its reports to the DOJ on April 23rd, 2023, and annually thereafter.
Analysis
The South Pasadena Police Department is committed to transparency in its best practices, and service to the community. To build a collaboration of trust, and to promote equitable treatment, the Police Department has pledged to communicate and educate the community by providing quarterly updated and reliable data on the Police Department Community Dashboard.
Police Strategies, LLC was contracted in August 2023 as a sole source vendor for the Police Department Community Dashboard. Police Strategies, LLC was selected due to its vast experience in city government, the legal profession, and in working with cities implementing Consent Decrees related to dashboard policing. The company has also built dashboards for cities such as Dallas, TX, Spokane, WA, Richmond, VA, and San Jose, CA. There were no providers with comparable experience in crime analysis and building dashboards.
The Police Department will continue to monitor data to ensure that staff are going above and beyond community and council directives. Staff will ensure that there are no biased trends, and that our policies and procedures are up to date to bolster our training efforts and align with our best practices.
Staff will continue to update information on the Community Dashboard quarterly, to provide the most complete and comprehensive information to the community.
Fiscal Impact
The total cost of this action is $10,000 year-to-date. Funding for the building of the dashboard and analysis was allocated from the Police Department’s Professional Services Account 101-4010-4011-8170. There will be additional costs for expenses related to the travel and accommodation for the community presentation. These costs will be invoiced after the presentation. Additional cost appropriations will be obtained from 2 - 2
Racial and Identity Profiling Act of 2015, Assembly Bill 953 March 20, 2024
existing funds in the Police Department’s General Fund. There are no anticipated impacts to other operational programs or capital projects as a result of this action.
Key Performance Indicators and Strategic Plan
This item aligns with Strategic Plan Priority 6c and 6d, which aims to enhance customer service through administrative policy.
Attachments:
1. South Pasadena Police Department Community Dashboard
2. 2024 Racial and Identity Profiling Act Board Executive Summary 2 - 3
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
2 - 4
ATTACHMENT 1
South Pasadena Police Department Community Dashboard
2 - 5
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
2 - 6
South Pasadena PD
Title RIPA Stops Arrests License Plate
Reads
Copyright © 2023 by Police Strategies LLC. All Rights Reserved.
South Pasadena Police Department
RIPA Stops
Arrests
License Plate Reads
2 - 7
South Pasadena PD
Title RIPA Stops Arrests License Plate
Reads
© Mapbox © OSM
© Mapbox © OSM
Jan-23Feb-23Mar-23
Apr-23
May-23Jun-23
Jul-23
Aug-23Sep-23
0 200
400
Stops
549
320
350 299
233 295
191
227
440
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
0 200
400
600
Stops
405 442 439
522 499 476
293
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
0 100
200
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000
Stops
Traffic Violation
Reasonable Suspicion
Consensual
Truancy
Warrant/Parole
2,852
198
10 9
8 Reason for Stop
Firearm Point
13 Firearm Point
Detention
431
Detention
Field Interview
1%
Warning
40%
Citation
37%
In Field Cite & Release
14%
Arrest
3%
Action Taken
Any Search
163
Search
<5 min
20%
5-10
67%
10-30
8%
>30 min
5%
Duration
0 20
40 60
Minutes
10 Avg Duration
FST
95 FST
Handcuff
116
Handcuff
0 200 400
Subjects
Traffic/Evading
DUI
Drugs
Drivers License
Theft/Auto/Burglary
Trespass/Disorderly
433
46 31
26 22
11 10
5 5
3 1
Crime Type
Moving
66%
Equipment
17%
Non-moving
9%
Crime
4%
Type of Violation
0 500 1,0001,500
Subjects
Fail to Stop Yield
Speeding
Vehicle Reg/Insurance
Equipment
Cell Phone
License Plate
1,130
516
324
288
266
197
154
124
34 21
17 14
Traffic Violation
Remove Vehicle
229
Remove
3,076
Number of Stops
3,451
Number of Subjects
Subject Limited English
All
Subject Disability
All
Subject LGBT
All
Female
34%
Male
65%
Subject Gender
Mid East
3%
Hispanic
46%
White
25%
Asian
17%
Black
9%
Subject Age
<18
2% 18-29
27%
30-39
29%
40-49
20%
50-59
13%
60+
8%
Subject Race
2 - 8
South Pasadena PD
Title RIPA Stops Arrests License Plate
Reads
© 2023 Mapbox © OpenStreetMap
Arrestee City of Residence
1,262
24 12
33 2
1 2
6 1
4 8
1 1
2 2
1 4
© Mapbox © OSM
County of Residence
1,367
1 1
2 3
1 1
2 2
1 1 1
1 1
2 © Mapbox © OSM
State of Residence
Hispanic
44%
White
29%
Asian
19%
Black
5%
Arrestee Race
Female
37%
Male
63%
Arrestee Sex
0 100 200 300 400
Number of Arrests
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
% of Total
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
% of Total
Los Angeles
Other Cities
South Pasadena
Alhambra
Pasadena
San Gabriel
San Marino
Monterey Park
Glendale
Altadena
El Monte
Rosemead
Arcadia
Covina
Compton
376
343
216
146
129
31 24
23 22
21 18
17 17
11 10
14%
14%
18% 12%
30%
45%
64%
31%
29%
14%
60%
54%
70%
33%
47%
59%
39%
22%
32%
42%
20%
38%
19%
33%
13%
68%
18%
18%
62%
50%
22%
45%
33%
35%
13%
18%
43%
67%
35%
9%
9%
9%
9%
8%
36%
24%
50%
47%
43%
45%
42%
52%
32%
33%
28%
24%
47%
20%
64%
76%
50%
53%
57%
55%
58%
48%
68%
67%
72%
76%
53%
91%
80%
9%
Race of Arrestee by Residence
1,404
Arrests
Residence Arrests % of
Total
Los Angeles
South Pasadena
Alhambra
Pasadena
San Gabriel
San Marino
Monterey Park
Glendale
Altadena
El Monte
Unknown
Arcadia
Rosemead
Covina
Compton
Montebello
West Covina
Anaheim
Azusa
Burbank
La Puente
Palmdale
Rancho Cucamonga
South Gate
Sylmar
Long Beach
Monrovia
La Cañada Flintridge
La Verne
Victorville
Canoga Park
Downey 0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.6%
0.6%
0.7%
0.8%
1.2%
1.2%
1.2%
1.3%
1.5%
1.6%
1.6%
1.7%
2.2%
9.2%
10.4%
15.4%
26.8%
4 4
5 5
5 6
6 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 8
9 10
11 17
17 17
18 21
22 23
24 31
129
146
216
376
Arrestee Residence
2 - 9
South Pasadena PD
Title RIPA Stops Arrests License Plate
Reads
© 2023 Mapbox © OpenStreetMap
Sep-14Sep-15Sep-16Sep-17Sep-18Sep-19Sep-20Sep-21Sep-22Sep-23Sep-24Sep-25Sep-26Sep-27Sep-28Sep-29Sep-30 Oct-01Oct-02Oct-03Oct-04Oct-05Oct-06Oct-07Oct-08Oct-09Oct-10Oct-11Oct-12Oct-13 0K
50K
100K
150K
Plate Reads
01234
Total Hits
147,199
Plate Reads per Day - 2023
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
0K
200K
400K
600K
800K
Plate Reads
537,637
597,319
634,624
818,983
782,313
574,569
470,530
Plate Reads Weekday
Stolen Vehicle
Felony Vehicle &
Stolen Plates
2 34
Hits
Orange Grove Blvd &
Columbia Ave
Pasadena Ave & Arroyo
Verde Rd
Fremont Ave & Columbia
St
Fremont Ave & Alhambra
Rd
Fair Oaks Ave & Hwy 110
Fair Oaks Ave & Columbia
Ave
Fair Oaks Ave & Monterey
Rd
Huntington Dr & Garfield
Ave
Orange Grove Ave & HWY
110 Off-Ramp
Meridian Ave & Kendall
Ave
Hill Dr & Collis Ave
Garfield Ave & Huntington
Dr
Alpha Ave & Valley View
Rd
0000013444668
Hits per Intersection
2 - 10
ATTACHMENT 2
2024 Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board
Executive Summary
2 - 11
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
2 - 12
2 - 13
2 - 14
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The California Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (Board) is pleased to release its seventh Annual Report (Report). The Report continues to build upon the Board's prior work by examining additional ways to improve law enforcement and community interactions and reduce racial and identity profiling.
The Report analyzes stop data reported on more than 4.5 million stops by 535 California law enforcement agencies from January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022. Additionally, the Report examines youth interactions with law enforcement, both within and outside of schools. The Report also explores the effect police unions may have on law enforcement accountability and protocols and guidelines for law enforcement training on racial and identity profiling. Furthermore, the Report continues the Board's examination of pretextual stops, analyzing the results of stops where field interview cards are completed and where the stops result in resisting arrest charges.
To supplement the Report, the Board also includes a summary of Recommendations and Best Practices.
The Board encourages all stakeholders, including law enforcement agencies, policymakers, the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), researchers, advocates, and community members, to use these recommendations and best practices to propose and implement data-driven reforms. Such reforms can strengthen law enforcement and community relationships and improve public safety for all Californians.
FINDINGS REGARDING STOP DATA
• Five hundred thirty-five agencies conducted a total of 4,575,725 stops from January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022.
• Black individuals were stopped 131.5 percent more frequently than expected, given their relative proportion of the California population, using a comparison of stop data and residential population data.
RESIDENTIAL POPULATION COMPARISON TO STOP DATA1
■ CA Residential Population (ACS 2021) ■ RIPA Stops (2022)
50.0% C 42.9% 0
·.;::;
ro 40.0% ....
C
QJ
VI 30.0% QJ
....
0..
QJ
a:: 20.0% 14.7% ....
C 12.5% 10.7% QJ
u 10.0% .... 4.5% QJ
a.. 0.0%
-
0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.6%
-~ ,,~
'?-
1 Because the ACS table used for these analyses does not contain a race category that is comparable to the Middle Eastern/South Asian group within the RIPA data, there is no residential population bar for this group in this Figure. For more information about the ACS data used in this section, see section 8.1 of Appendix B. 1 2024 RIPA Report
Executive Summary
2 - 15
• Individuals perceived to be Hispanic/Latine(x) (42.9%), White (32.5%), or Black (12.5%) comprised the majority of stopped individuals.
• Individuals perceived to be between the ages of 25 and 34 accounted for the largest proportion of individuals stopped within any age group (32.1%).
• The majority of individuals stopped were perceived to be cisgender male (70.9%) or cisgender female (28.7%), with all other groups collectively constituting less than one percent of stops. • Officers perceived 1.4 percent of individuals stopped to have a disability. Of individuals perceived to have a disability, the most common disability reported by officers was a mental health disability (68.4%).
Asian
4.5%
RACE OR ETHNICITY, GENDER AND AGE DISTRIBUTIONS OF 2022 RIPA STOP DATA Race or Ethnicity
Multiracial
American
0.3%
1.1% Pacific Islander
0.6%
Gender
Gender t Transgender
Nonconforming Man/Boy
0.23% 0.09%
Transgender
Woman/Girl
0.06%
Age
15-17 _I I 1
; 3~~~
1.5% l\.1%
10-14
0.3%
• The most common reason reported for stops across all racial and ethnic groups was a traffic violation (82.1%), followed by reasonable suspicion that the person was engaged in criminal activity (14.2%). Individuals perceived to be Native American had the highest proportion of stops reported for reasonable suspicion (20.3%) and the lowest proportion of stops reported for traffic violations (71.3%).
2 2024 RIPA Report
Executive Summary
2 - 16
PRIMARY REASON FOR STOP BY RACE OR ETHNICITY
Asian
Black
H ispanic/Latine(x)
Middle Eastern/South Asian
Multiracial
Native American
Pacific Islander
White
0%
■ Traffic Violation ■ Reasonable Suspicion ■ Other
91.6%
76.1%
82.9%
93.7%
81.5%
71.3%
83.4%
80.2%
25% 50% 75%
Percent of Stops of Racial or Ethnic Group
100%
• Officers reported that 9.3 percent of stops were made in response to a call for service.
The Board also analyzed the actions taken by law enforcement officers during stops. Findings indicate that:
• All racial or ethnic groups of color were searched at higher rates than individuals perceived to be White, except for individuals perceived as Asian, Middle Eastern/South Asian, and Pacific Islander. Individuals perceived to be Native American had the highest rate of being searched (22.4%), while individuals perceived to be Middle Eastern/South Asian were searched at the lowest rate (4.2%). Individuals perceived to be White were searched 12.4 percent of the time, meaning officers searched individuals perceived to be Native American 10 percent more often than individuals they perceived as White (22.4% vs. 12.4%). Officers also searched individuals perceived to be Black (+8.2%), Hispanic/Latine(x) (+2.5%), and Multiracial (+1.8%) more often than stopped individuals perceived to be White.
• Search discovery rates (i.e. the rate at which contraband or evidence of a crime was discovered) did not vary widely across racial or ethnic groups. However, discovery rates were lower during stops with searches of all racial or ethnic groups of color (-2.1% Asian, -2.5% Black, -4.0% Hispanic/Latine(x), -5.6% Middle Eastern/South Asian, -0.6% Multiracial, -0.6% Native American, and -2.6% for Pacific Islander individuals) compared to individuals perceived to be White. 3 2024 RIPA Report
Executive Summary
2 - 17
QJ
.'!:
..r::.
3:
E
0 ....
-QJ
20%
15%
10%
~ VI 5%
~ cii QJ :::, 0%
tt:: ~ ·- >
;: 'o -5% C: C:
·o ·- -10% C.
QJ
00 re
+J
C:
QJ
u
....
QJ
c..
-15%
-20%
RACIAL OR ETHNIC DISPARITIES IN SEARCH AND DISCOVERY RATES ■ Search Rate ■ Discovery Rate
10.0%
8.2%
2.5% 1.8%
0.0%
~ -
-0.6% -0.6%
-
-2.6%
-4.0%
-6.8%
• Relative to other groups, individuals perceived to be Native American had the highest rate of being handcuffed (17.8%) among all racial and ethnic groups. Individuals perceived to be Black had the highest rates of being detained curbside or in a patrol car (20.2%) and ordered to exit a vehicle (7.1%). Individuals perceived to be Middle Eastern/South Asian had the lowest reported rate for each of these actions (ranging from 1.6% to 5.4%). 24%
C.
:::, 22% 0
....
l!) 20% .!::!
C:
..r::. 18% +J
w
.... 16% 0
re
·;:; 14% re
0::: 12%
-0
VI
C. 10%
0 +J 8% Vl
-0 6% +J
C:
QJ
u 4% ....
QJ
c.. 2%
0%
ACTIONS TAKEN DURING STOP BY RACE OR ETHNICITY
Searched Curbside/Patrol
Car Detention
Handcuffed Ordered Vehicle
Exit
■ Asian
■ Black
■ Hispanic/Latine(x)
■ Middle Eastern/
South Asian
■ Multiracial
■ Native American
■ Pacific Islander
■ White
• Relative to other age groups, individuals perceived to be between the ages of 10 to 14 had the highest rate of being searched (24.6%), detained on the curb or in a patrol car (32.9%), and handcuffed (19.2%). Individuals perceived to be between the ages of 15 to 17 had the highest rate of being removed from a vehicle by order (7.2%).
4 2024 RIPA Report
Executive Summary
2 - 18
40%
35%
a.
:::,
0 30% I..
l9
QJ 25% b.O
<(
.....
0 20% V)
a.
0 ....
Vl 15% .....
0 ....
C: 10% QJ
u
I..
QJ
0.. 5%
0%
ACTIONS TAKEN DURING STOP BY AGE GROUP
Searched Curbside/Patrol Car
Detention
Handcuffed Ordered Vehicle Exit
■ 1-9
■ 10-14
■ 15-17
■ 18-24
■ 25-34
■ 35-44
45-54
■ 55-64
65+
• Individuals perceived to be transgender women/girls had the highest rate of being searched (28.3%), detained curbside or in a patrol car (30.3%), handcuffed (29.9%), and being removed from a vehicle by order (6.4%). Individuals perceived to be cisgender female consistently had the lowest rates for each of these actions (8.6% searched, 11.3% detained curbside or in a patrol car, 7.1% handcuffed, and 3.4% removed from vehicle by order). • Individuals perceived to have a disability were searched (42.7%), detained curbside or in a patrol car (42.2%), and handcuffed (41.6%) at a much higher rate than individuals perceived to not have a disability (13.4% searched, 14.4% detained curbside or in a patrol car, and 9.9% handcuffed). However, individuals perceived to have a disability were removed from a vehicle by order at a lower rate (3.4%), compared to individuals who were not perceived to have a disability (4.8%).
Officers also report the result of each stop (for example, warning or citation given, arrest, or no action taken). Officers reported taking no action as a result of a stop most frequently for individuals perceived to be Black (12.4%). Officers reported taking no action as a result of a stop least often for stops of individuals perceived to be Middle Eastern/South Asian (4.5%). 5 2024 RIPA Report
Executive Summary
2 - 19
RESULT OF STOP - NO ACTION BY RACE OR ETHNICITY
■ Action Taken ■ No Action Taken
Asian 94.6%
Black 87.6% 12.4%
H ispanic/Lati ne(x) 90.6% 9.4%
Middle Eastern/South Asian 95.5% 4.5%
Multiracial 91.6% 8.4%
Native American 89.3% 10.7%
Pacific Islander 91.2% 8.8%
White 91.4% 8.6%
0.0% 25.0% 50.0% 75.0% 100.0%
PRETEXTUAL STOPS
This Report continues to build on the Board's prior discussion, analysis, and recommendations regarding pretext stops and searches. First, the Board examines the effectiveness of two different policy approaches to pretext stops adopted by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and the state of Virginia. The new LAPD policy allows officers to make traffic stops only if the violation significantly interferes with public safety or if they have information to suspect the person has committed a serious crime (i.e., a crime with potential for great bodily injury or death). The Virginia policy, by contrast, establishes what is known as a primary and secondary traffic enforcement system, where an officer can only stop someone for a primary public safety violation and not solely for a defined secondary violation, such as an expired registration.
• Preliminarily, it appears the policies contributed to an overall reduction in stops and searches.
LAPD data indicate an overall reduction in stops and searches, a slight increase in discovery rates, and a slight decrease in disparities of persons stopped who were perceived to be Black.
Data for Virginia indicate a slight reduction in the number of stops and searches overall, although disparities persist. Because these policies are new, an analysis of their impact would benefit from more data.
• The data on LAPD stops indicate that the number of traffic violation stops for common equipment violations dramatically decreased after the LAPD pretext policy was implemented (60.2% reduction in total stops for equipment violations between 2022 and 2021 comparison periods).
6 2024 RIPA Report
Executive Summary
2 - 20
MONTHLY STOP TOTALS FOR Los ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT 2021 AND 2022 50000
~ 40000
<(
....J
E 30000 en
0..
0 ci5 20000
>,
..c
-C
~ 10000
0 0 r
Pretext Policy
Begins
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month of Year
Year
... 2021
... 2022
• LAPD discovered contraband during a higher percentage of RIPA reported stops with searches after the pretext policy was in place (37.9% discovery rate) compared to the same time period in 2021, before the pretext policy was in place (36.0% discovery rate).
Next, the Board discusses legislative measures to address pretext stops and searches, including Senate Bill No. 50 (2023-2024 Reg. Sess.) and Assembly Bill No. 93, and expresses its support of these bills and related recommendations. The Board also discusses the provisions regarding pretext stops and searches, including consent searches, in the settlement agreement between the State of Minnesota and the Minneapolis Police Department that resulted from parallel pattern and practice investigations by Minnesota and the United States Department of Justice (U.S. DOJ) following the murder of George Floyd.
The Board also delves deeper into RIPA data related to pretext stops, analyzing the results of stops where field interview cards are completed and stops resulting in a charge of resisting arrest. The results show notable disparities, and the data indicate the results may have little to no connection to the original reasons for the stop, such as traffic infractions.
Field Interview Cards
A field interview card is a document law enforcement officers can choose to fill out during a contact with an individual that can contain information regarding a person's nickname, who the person is with, what they are wearing, or any social media accounts - even if the person is not involved in criminal activity. Many of these field interview cards are entered into criminal databases, such as CalGang, which are used by law enforcement agencies to share data collected in these interviews. This can have serious repercussions; if an individual is "known to police" because their name is in a database - even if due to a consensual encounter - they may later be treated by law enforcement as having a criminal history even if they do not. As shown below, the RIPA data show disparities regarding when officers complete field interview cards. More specifically, the reasons given for those stops often do not implicate a need to complete a field interview card in the first place. If an officer conducts a pretextual stop - for which the RIPA data show there are disparities, suggesting bias may play a role - any initial bias for the stop could influence the decision to complete a field interview card and the information the officer records on the card and enters into the database. This may result in the compounding of bias affecting the database.
7 2024 RIPA Report
Executive Summary
2 - 21
• Of the stops where officers completed a field interview card, individuals perceived to be Hispanic/Latine(x) represented the largest racial or ethnic group of stopped individuals (45.6%), followed by individuals perceived to be White (24.2%) and Black (23.6%). However, field interview cards were filled out for a larger percentage of stops when individuals were perceived to be Black (5.4% of stops), Multiracial (3.2%), or Hispanic/Latine(x) (3.0%). Individuals perceived as Black had the highest per capita occurrence of field interview cards (1,441 field interview cards per 100,000 residents or 4.4 times the statewide average).
PERCENTAGE OF STOPS WITH FIELD INTERVIEW CARDS BY RACIAL OR ETHNIC GROUP ~ 5~----------------------------~ J 5.37%
:1:
Q)
-~
Q)
c 4 Statewide
"O
Q)
u::::
..c
-
-
~ 2
en
0..
0 u5
Average
1.31%
3.02% 3.2%
1.24%
Perceived Racial or Ethnic Group
• When an officer stops an individual, the officer reports the specific suspected offense. For stops for reasonable suspicion, the primary offenses with the largest number of field interview cards were local ordinance violations (9,463 field interview cards),2 community caretaking (5,079 field interview cards), trespassing (4,844 field interview cards), and burglary (3,451 field interview cards).3
• Youth perceived to be 10 to 14 years old had the highest percentage of stops during which field interview cards were issued (7.8% of stops where a field interview card was issued), followed by 15 to 17 year olds (6%). These rates are more than double the statewide average percentage of stops with field interview cards (2.8%).
• Across all age groups between the ages of 10 and 80, individuals perceived as Black had the highest percentage of stops in which a field interview card was completed, among all racial and ethnic groups.
2 Local ordinance violation Offense Codes 65002 and 65000 were combined into 65000 for the purposes of this figure. 3 Local ordinance violations are specified with California DOJ CJIS Offense Codes 65000 and 65002. Community Ca retaking is specified with California DOJ CJIS Offense Code 99990. 8 2024 RIPA Report
Executive Summary
2 - 22
PERCENTAGE OF STOPS WITH FIELD INTERVIEW CARDS BY RACIAL OR ETHNIC GROUP AND AGE GROUP ...-..
~ 20 CJ)
"E
co
0 ~ 15
Q)
-~
Q)
-C
::; 10
Q)
u::
..c
"-§: 5
CJ)
c..
0 u5
0 l{) 0) 'St ,..__ 0) 'St 0) 'St 0) 'St 0) 'St 0) 'St 0) 'St 0) 'St ai ~a~~~NNMMVV~~mm~~ro>
~~BB~BBBBBBBBBBBBB 0
.!:; Ol{) C1J0l{)Ql{)0l{)0l{)0l{)0l{)0~ -' coNNC")C")'St'Stl{)l{)COCOt---t---CO C1l Age group perceived (years)
l{)
co
Perceived
Racial or
Ethnic Group
- Asian
- Black
Hispanic
Middle Eastern/South Asian
- Multiracial
- Native American
- Pacific Islander
- White
Based on these findings, the Board makes the following recommendations to the Legislature, municipalities, and agencies regarding field interview cards:
• Prohibit the collection of field interview cards and entries into CalGang or any agency database in absence of an arrest.
• Prohibit the collection of field interview cards and entries of youth into CalGang or any agency database designed to track criminal information after youth are questioned or a field interview is conducted without the presence of an attorney.
• In the alternative to the two recommendations above, agencies should recognize (and include in their policies) that these encounters may not be fully consensual, and officers should be required to inform the individuals subject to the field interview that they do not have to respond to questions and are free to leave. Additionally, officers should be required to:
o Inform individuals that providing a physical form of identification is voluntary; o Not use a person's failure to stop, answer questions, decision to end the encounter, or attempt or decision to walk away to establish reasonable suspicion for initial stop or detention, search, citation, or arrest of the person if an officer is engaged in, or attempting to engage in, a field interview.
• Consider prohibiting law enforcement agencies from creating criminal databases that are not tied to information about an arrest or conviction.
• Ban the collection of information and entries into any agency databases designed to track criminal information if the entry is collected from a stop for community ca retaking or when a person might be experiencing a mental health crisis. Law enforcement supervisors shall review any case where a field interview card is filled out after a community ca retaking or crisis intervention contact. This recommendation does not apply to collecting information that might assist law enforcement in its approach to interacting with the individual in crisis or in engaging in their legal requirements under disability civil rights laws. 9 2024 RIPA Report
Executive Summary
2 - 23
• Make the removal process from CalGang and other agency databases designed to track or store criminal information more transparent. Require agencies to conduct regular audits, including determining if notice is properly provided to a person entered into a database and evaluating the processes for removal from the databases to ensure compliance with the laws. • Create funding incentives for agencies to adopt policies prohibiting the input of non-criminal information into agency databases for tracking purposes and audit those practices.
Resisting Arrest Stops
In California, resisting arrest (including obstructing or delaying an officer in the performance of their duties) can be charged as a misdemeanor with or without accompanying charges. In this Report, the Board looks specifically at misdemeanor resisting arrest charges where there is no alleged injury charged as a part of the crime and the sole charge is resisting arrest. • Individuals perceived as Black had the highest per capita rate of stops that resulted in a sole charge of resisting arrest (32.7 stops per 100,000 residents, 3.3 times the statewide average).
Individuals perceived as Black accounted for 19.2 percent of all stops that resulted in a sole charge of resisting arrest, while accounting for only 5.4 percent of the California residential population.
• Individuals perceived as Native American had the highest percentage of stops that resulted in a sole resisting arrest charge among perceived racial or ethnic groups (0.22%, 2.8 times the state average). Other racial or ethnic groups with above average percentages of stops resulting in sole resisting arrest charges include individuals perceived as Black (0.12% of stops), Multiracial (0.1%), Pacific Islander (0.09%) and Hispanic/Latine(x) (0.08%).
PERCENT OF STOPS RESULTING IN SOLE RESISTING ARREST BY RACIAL OR ETHNIC GROUP Q)
O'l C ,._
·- ~ 0.20
g'o
~en
W ~ 0.15
Cl)~
a. O'l Statewide QC
0.22%
0.12%
0.1%
u5 :.= 0·
10 Avera e 0.08% 1::-~ 1---'-....;.;...;;..;..;;;.wc.;;._-E---+-F====,-----+----++---+- Q) Q) ~ 0::: 0.05 Q) Q)
Cl. 0
(j)
0.00 0.03% - ------- ._ _ ____,
0.02%
Racial or Ethnic Group
0.09%
• Individuals perceived as being between the ages of 11 and 15 had the highest percentage of stops that resulted in a sole resisting arrest charge among perceived age groups (0.37%, 4.6 times the state average).
10 2024 RIPA Report
Executive Summary
2 - 24
PERCENT OF STOPS RESULTING IN SOLE RESISTING ARREST BY AGE GROUP
0.5 0
6 '#-
0.0 ■ 0 ...... , ...... , ...... ,__,,_
~~~~~~$~~~$~$#~~$~$~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Perceived Age (years)
Statistic calculated with
less than 5 resist
arrest stops
No
~ Yes
• Individuals perceived to have a mental health disability had the highest percentage of stops that resulted in a sole resisting arrest charge among perceived or known disability groups (0.46%, 5.7 times the state average).
• Individuals perceived as LGBT and transgender had the highest percentage of stops resulting in sole resisting arrest charges (0.25%, three times the statewide average).
Based on the RIPA data and a review of the impacts of evolving district attorneys' policies, the Board makes several recommendations to agencies, municipalities, district attorneys, and the Legislature:
• Adopt internal policies that prohibit district attorneys from filing and law enforcement agencies from submitting to the district attorney's office for review misdemeanor criminal filings on standalone resisting arrest charges if it is the sole charge listed at the time of arrest and is not accompanied by other citable offenses unless extraordinary circumstances exist, such as an identifiable, continuing threat to another individual or another circumstance of similar gravity. • Explore internal policies that limit district attorneys from filing standalone misdemeanor resisting arrest charges or charges where resisting arrest is charged in conjunction with trespass, disturbing the peace, driving without a valid license or a suspended license, simple drug possession, minor in possession of alcohol, drinking in public, under the influence of a controlled substance, public intoxication, or loitering unless extraordinary circumstances exist, such as an identifiable, continuing threat to another individual or another circumstance of similar gravity.
• Develop policies to require officers to notify supervisors prior to making an arrest for resisting arrest and have supervisors review any case where resisting arrest is alleged in a report. • Develop policies requiring district attorneys to review body-worn camera footage in any case that involves a resisting arrest allegation prior to filing charges. • Adopt internal policies that eliminate or severely limit arrests and charges filed for resisting arrest during consensual encounters unless extraordinary circumstances exist, such as an identifiable, continuing threat to another individual or another circumstance of similar gravity. 11 2024 RIPA Report
Executive Summary
2 - 25
• Adopt internal policies that prohibit arrest and filing of charges against individuals stopped for community ca retaking unless extraordinary circumstances exist, such as an identifiable, continuing threat to another individual or another circumstance of similar gravity. • Adopt internal policies that prohibit arrest and filing of charges against individuals if the alleged resisting stems from a disability.
Assignment Type: Specialized Teams and Hot Spot Policing Lastly, the Board analyzes officer assignment type data, including a discussion of the history of specialized teams and concerns about some of their actions. The Report discusses how the assignment type (such as specialized units) and other specific policing strategies may increase the opportunities for pretextual stops. RIPA data for 2022 indicates that:
• For nine of the ten officer assignment types, the highest per-resident stop rate was for individuals perceived as Black, followed by individuals perceived as Pacific Islander and Hispanic/Latine(x).
• Comparing across officer assignment types, officers who worked on a specialized team and had the assignment type of "Gang Enforcement" had the highest percentages of all stop actions during stops, with the exception of use of force. Officers of this assignment type handcuffed an individual during 20.4 percent of all stops for traffic violations, performed a detention (curbside or patrol car) during 28.6 percent of traffic stops, and performed a search during 39.3 percent of traffic stops.
The Board makes the following recommendations with respect to officer assignment types and the use of specialized teams:
• Create policies that provide for measurable oversight of specialized teams and require law enforcement agencies to develop policies that define clear objectives and outcomes for specialized teams. These policies should address enforcement of any violation of the law or deviation from the programmatic mission; and
• Provide funding for programs that focus on community-based drug and violence intervention programs.
The Board also began to explore the relationship between drug possession charges and pretextual stops, including reviewing RIPA data that show individuals who are Black or Hispanic/Latine/(x) are more likely to be cited or arrested for drug offenses despite research showing that drug use rates are virtually the same across race and ethnicity.
• For stops resulting in drug possession charges, the top ten reasons for a stop were five types of vehicle equipment violations, three offense codes associated with drug possession, and two reasonable suspicion offenses (failure to obey juvenile court order and second-degree burglary).
The five equipment violations that resulted in the most drug possession charges were vehicle registration (6,577), improper display of license plates (2,319), bike headlight violation (2,004), failure to maintain vehicle lights (1,336), and window obstruction (1,093). • Individuals perceived as Black were stopped for drug possession reasons at the highest rate per resident among racial or ethnic groups (105.1 stops with reason for stop reported as drug possession, 2.6 times the statewide average).
12 2024 RIPA Report
Executive Summary
2 - 26
POLICE CONTACT WITH YOUTH WITH DISABILITIES AND YOUTH
EXPERIENCING MENTAL HEALTH CRISES
This year, the Board examines data and research suggesting that youth with disabilities, including youth experiencing mental health crises, are particularly vulnerable to police violence and are at higher risk of intrusive police contact, use of force, and death during police encounters. Stop data reported by California law enforcement agencies in 2022 and other studies indicate that:
• Individuals perceived or known to have a disability had the highest percentage of stops reported as reasonable suspicion across all age groups, compared to individuals perceived to not have a disability.
REASONABLE SUSPICION STOPS BY AGE GROUP AND DISABILITY
Reasonable Suspicion Stops
80% 70.2% 66.4% 70.3% 65.3% 70% • • 62.7%
.. ~ • 60% 54.2% • 0 ~ Disability
t, 50% ....
_!: 40% C:
~ 30% ~ No Disability ...
~ 20% 13.8%
10%
0%
1-9 10-14 15-17 18-24 25+
Perceived Age Group
• Officers reported that 1.2 percent of stops made in 2022 were consensual encounters that resulted in a search. Youth between the ages of 10 and 14 with a perceived disability had the highest percentage of stops reported as a consensual encounter resulting in a search (12.0%) compared to youth not perceived to have a disability, followed by youth with a perceived disability between the ages of 15 and 17 (11.5%).
RATE OF CONSENSUAL ENCOUNTER RESULTING IN A SEARCH BY AGE GROUP AND DISABILITY Consensual Encounter Resulting in a Search
14% 12.0% 11.5%
12%
"' g- 10% ~ Disability ....
Vl
.... 8% 0
....
C: 6% Q) ~ No Disability u
... 4% 2.6% Q)
c.. 1.7% 1.5% • 1.2%
2% .. 0.7%
• .. 0% •
1-9 10-14 15-17 18-24 25+
Perceived Age Group
• In California, public schools refer students with disabilities to law enforcement at a higher rate than most other students. Only Black students are referred at a higher rate. If the school has an assigned law enforcement officer, the rate of referral for students with disabilities quadruples. • Police stops can trigger adverse effects beyond the initial arrest or interaction with the juvenile justice system, including higher rates of arrest, juvenile detention, and long-term mental health 13 2024 RIPA Report
Executive Summary
2 - 27
consequences. In the Los Angeles County juvenile justice system alone, 87 percent of youth have a mental disability.
In light of this data, the Board discusses the negative mental health effects and criminalization that can result from youth interactions with police, as well as approaches recommended by researchers and advocates for encounters with youth with disabilities and youth experiencing mental health crises.
In general, researchers and advocates recommend that law enforcement agencies and communities prioritize a care-first model, reducing unnecessary criminal justice intervention or law enforcement response in favor of a sustained community response.
ADDRESSING PROFILING OF STUDENTS
The Board continues to build on the foundation of the prior report, analyzing issues related to policing in schools. The Report discusses research and data on law enforcement in schools, as well as the disparate impact of school policing on Black and Hispanic/Latine(x) youth and youth with disabilities across California's schools.
The Board discusses research demonstrating that police priorities vary across different school settings, with school-based law enforcement officers in White suburban school districts more often viewing students as charges to be protected, and school-based law enforcement officers in urban districts with a larger number of Black students more often treating students as criminals to be feared. The role of school-based law enforcement officers also varies across schools, and officers are more involved in the disciplinary process in schools with more students of color.
The Board also analyzes data, including RIPA stop data, regarding law enforcement in California schools.
The data indicate that:
• California school districts report a larger number of law enforcement officers than social workers and a greater number of security guards than nurses. • There are 19 school district-administered police departments in California. These school district police departments are independent of the municipal police agencies or sheriff's departments and are established by the governing board of a school district. The majority of students in these school districts are youth of color.
• In 2022, 743 officers reported making stops while working an assignment type of "K-12 Public School." Both school district-administered police departments and municipal law enforcement agencies may assign officers to work in K-12 public schools. These officers reported making 9,130 stops while working this assignment type.
• Among stops of students on campus, 3,514 stops (54.6%) were made by officers with an assignment type of "K-12 Public School" and 2,735 stops (42.5%) were made by officers with an assignment type of "Patrol, traffic enforcement, field operations." The most common primary reason for stops of students on K-12 campuses was reasonable suspicion that the student was engaged in criminal activity (3,705 stops, 57.5% of stops of students on campus).
The next most common primary reasons for stops were "to determine whether student violated school policy" (1,143 stops, 17.8% of stops of students on campus), traffic violation (724 stops, 11.2% of stops of students on campus), "possible conduct under Education Code" (308 stops, 4.8% of stops of students on campus), and truancy (290 stops, 4.5% of stops of students on campus). 14 2024 RIPA Report
Executive Summary
2 - 28
COUNTS AND PERCENTAGES OF PRIMARY REASONS FOR STOPS OF STUDENTS ON K-12 CAMPUSES Reason for Stop
Reasonable Suspicion
To Determine Whether Student
Violated School Policy
Traffic Violation
Possible Conduct Warranting
Discipline Under Education Code
To Determine Truancy
Consensual Encounter that
Resulted in a Search
Outstanding Warrant/Wanted
Supervision
-
3,705
1,143
724
308
290
171
62 37
Percentage of
Student Stops
57.53%
17.75%
11.24%
4.78%
4.50%
2.66%
0.96%
0.57%
• Students on campus perceived to be Black had a larger percentage of stops for reasonable suspicion (66.4% of stops) compared to other racial or ethnic groups of students (Hispanic/ Latine(x) (61.3%), White (49.7%), Asian (45%), Other (42%)).
REASON FOR STOP - PERCENT OF STOPS OF STUDENTS ON CAMPUS BY IDENTITY GROUP Education Code
60 40
rn 20 ::::i
a.
E
Cll
() 0
C
0 ~'If cf:- ~ ·1'.e,
rn ~f/j i::,~e, ~~ a. ~
0 ·<>--v'lf in '1f ~
c ~"'~ Q)
"O
::::i School Policy in
c
Q)
60 (.)
'-
Q)
a..
40 38.89%
e,'
o-s'
45.06%
- 27.3%
15 Other Reason
Suspicion
66.4%
- 61 .3%
- 49.69%
- 42.24%
2024 RIPA Report
Executive Summary
2 - 29
• There were 3,149 stops of students on campus that officers reported as related to calls for service (48.9%). This compares to 9.3 percent of stops statewide that officers reported as related to calls for service.
• Officers handcuffed students on campus perceived as Black in the highest percentage of stops (20%) compared to other racial or ethnic groups (Asian (11.7%), Hispanic/Latine(x) (11.1%), White (9.1%), or Other (8.6%)).
-C
Q)
"O
:J
CJ) u5
a.
.8~
Cl) :J
-(.) C "O
Q) C (.) C1l mI
a.. ,._
Q)
(.)
iE
0 PERCENTAGE OF STOPS IN WHICH OFFICERS USED HANDCUFFS
STUDENTS ON CAMPUS BY RACIAL OR ETHNIC GROUP
20 20.03%
15 11 .73% 11 .07%
10 8.62% 9.13%
5 0
• The most common "Result of Stop" during stops of students on campus was a referral to a school administrator (1,688 results), followed by contact of a parent/legal guardian or other person responsible for the student (1,553 results), citation for an infraction (1,215 results), infield cite and release (986 results), warning (885 results), and custodial arrest without warrant (818 results). Officers reported that 403 students were placed on psychiatric holds following stops on K-12 campuses. Officers reported completing field interview cards as a result of 157 stops of students on K-12 campuses.
To mitigate the disproportionate and detrimental impacts of law enforcement interactions with Black and Hispanic/Latine(x) students and students with disabilities, the Board makes the following recommendations:
• Based on the findings in the Board's 2023 Report and the present Report demonstrating racial bias in policing in schools, the Board recommends that the Legislature repeal the part of Education Code section 38000 authorizing school districts to operate their own police departments.
• The Legislature should explore identifying specific student conduct or statutory violations that require disciplinary action that should be handled by school staff, and for which law enforcement officers should not be involved. This review should include making clear the responsibility of schools to respond to conduct requiring disciplinary action without relying on police and the related responsibility of police not to respond to disciplinary issues in schools. 16 2024 RIPA Report
Executive Summary
2 - 30
• School districts should adopt policies that require staff to obtain approval from an administrator prior to reporting a student to law enforcement with respect to non-emergency matters.
Districts should set clear policies that staff are only permitted to contact law enforcement without prior approval in circumstances involving an immediate threat to school safety or imminent risk of serious physical harm to students or staff. Districts should clearly define those situations that would qualify as an emergency and require staff to document the reasons law enforcement was contacted.
• The Legislature should more clearly define how suspected offenses related to fighting, assault and battery without injury, threats of assault and battery, and drug possession by students on K-12 campuses should be treated by school staff and whether or not they should be referred to police.
• The Legislature should prohibit law enforcement officers from pursuing or using force in an effort to detain, apprehend, or overcome resistance of students who are fleeing relating solely to low-level disciplinary conduct.
• The Board recommends that school districts adopt policies establishing that under no circumstance should law enforcement use force against students that is not legitimate, necessary, and proportionate.
In addition, the Board recommends:
Stop Data Reporting by Law Enforcement in Schools
• Law enforcement agencies should implement practices to ensure the accurate and complete reporting of RIPA stop data among primary and secondary school-aged children and youth.
Agencies should provide training to clarify the requirements for reporting stops of students. • The Board recommends incorporating data, disaggregated by identity groups, about all law enforcement stops of students and the outcomes of these stops into California's existing school accountability system as an indicator of school climate.
Student Threat Assessment Processes
• The Legislature should develop due process protections for student threat assessment processes and mandate that incidents involving only self-harm may not be assessed as threats. • Researchers should study threat assessment outcomes to evaluate whether they are consistent, align with the programs' guidelines, and are effective at reducing violence and improving student experiences.
• The Legislature should require schools to inform parents and students of threat assessment processes on an annual basis by including information on them in the school's policies and orientation materials and on its website.
Use of Restraints, Electronic Control Weapons, Chemical Agents • The Legislature should prohibit law enforcement officers and school security personnel from using mechanical restraints on all students unless the student poses a serious risk of harm to themselves or another person. This is especially the case for students with a perceived or known disability or a student having a mental health crisis. • The Legislature should prohibit law enforcement officers and school security personnel from using electronic control weapons against students or individuals who reasonably appear to be minors in K-12 schools.
17 2024 RIPA Report
Executive Summary
2 - 31
• The Legislature should prohibit the use of all chemical agents, including but not limited to OC spray, against students or individuals who reasonably appear to be minors in K-12 schools.
Training
• The Legislature should mandate that any law enforcement officer who is working an assignment that may require responding to a school receive training provided by POST, which is currently mandated for officers employed by a school district-administered police department. The Legislature should also mandate that POST update this training.
Funding
• The Legislature should limit or prohibit the use of funding to pay for school-based police, school-based probation department staff, and school security officers and reinvest funding into resources that promote safe environments for and improve services to students, such as providing family resource navigators, school climate advocates, and restorative justice teachers. • Government agencies prioritize grant and other funding that focuses on educational and supportive programs like counseling, as opposed to funding law enforcement presence in schools.
RACIAL AND IDENTITY PROFILING POLICIES AND ACCOUNTABILITY The Board continues to explore issues related to police accountability, beginning with a discussion of the role police unions may play. The Report analyzes the lack of community input in collective bargaining agreements and police union influence on legislation that affects police accountability, as illustrated by the legislative histories of Assembly Bills No. 931 and No. 392. Further, the Report addresses the limitations caused by California's Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights (POBR) that affect a law enforcement agency's ability to hold officers accountable.
The Report also reviews provisions in police contracts that scholars believe may limit accountability, including: (1) delays in interrogation or interview of officers suspected of misconduct; (2) providing officers access to evidence of alleged misconduct prior to interrogation; (3) limiting consideration of disciplinary records by excluding records for future employment or destroying disciplinary records from files after a set period; (4) limiting the length of time during which an investigation must conclude or disciplinary action can occur; (5) limiting anonymous complaints; (6) limiting civilian oversight; and (7) permitting or requiring arbitration of disputes related to disciplinary actions. These protections are above and beyond the protections provided to other public sector employees or individuals suspected of a crime who are facing potential losses of personal freedom.
The Report also discusses the role of municipalities in representing various stakeholders, including the public, during collective bargaining, and the benefits of including rank-and-file members of law enforcement in discussions of police reform.
In light of this discussion, the Board highlights several questions that warrant additional research, including:
• While POBR was intended to protect to officers, does it affect community interests by obstructing some aspects of police accountability?
• Do certain provisions or agreements with unions or a POBR change officer behavior or prevent accountability?
• Does the structure of a union affect practices related to uses of force or critical incidents? The Board calls on researchers to review agency-level data (including data reported through RIPA) and 18 2024 RIPA Report
Executive Summary
2 - 32
the structure of police unions, POBR, and questions of collective bargaining to study their impact on police behavior, specifically with regard to bias. The Board encourages examination of these questions and the data in order to provide more evidence regarding the impact of unions on law enforcement accountability.
Lastly, the Report analyzes the existing legal standard for qualified immunity (a defense officers may raise in court), how the standard has been interpreted and applied by courts, and how this doctrine can impact the ability to hold officers accountable for misconduct.
CIVILIAN COMPLAINTS
The Report analyzes civilian complaint data reported by 518 law enforcement agencies in 2022. The 2022 data indicate that:
• In total, 10,156 complaints were reported by RIPA agencies in 2022. The majority of complaints alleged non-criminal conduct (94.7%), while 4.1 percent alleged conduct that constitutes a misdemeanor offense, and 1.3 percent alleged conduct that constitutes a felony. • Roughly three-quarters of RIPA agencies (74.5%) reported receiving one or more civilian complaints, while the remaining quarter of agencies (25.5%) reported receiving zero civilian complaints in 2022.
• Of the agencies that reported receiving civilian complaints in 2022, 42.7 percent reported one or more complaints alleging racial or identity profiling. A total of 1,233 complaints reported in 2022 alleged an element of racial or identity profiling, constituting 12.1 percent of the total 10,156 complaints reported in 2022. Each complaint can have multiple allegations. A total of 1,395 allegations of racial and identity profiling were made in 2022.
TOTAL ALLEGATIONS OF RACIAL AND IDENTITY PROFILING REPORTED IN 2022 Total Number of Profiling Allegations
Age 40
Gender 74
Gender Identity Expression 33
Mental Disability 51
Nationality 37
Physical Disability 48
Race and Ethnicity -------------------- 1,056
Religion 19
Sexual Orientation 37
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
19 2024 RIPA Report
Executive Summary
2 - 33
DISPOSITION DISTRIBUTION OF 2022 COMPLAINTS
Total Complaints that reached a
Disposition in 2022
4,509,
56.3%
■ Sustained ■ Exonerated
■ Not Sustained ■ Unfounded
Total Racial and Identity
Complaints that reached a
Disposition in 2022
9, 0.8% 112,
■ Sustained ■ Exonerated
■ Not Sustained ■ Unfounded
The Report also analyzes issues impacting the effectiveness of the civilian complaint process, including the need to uniformly define "civilian complaint" across all law enforcement agencies, review video footage during complaint investigations, and incorporate root cause analysis into the complaint process. The Board makes the following recommendations:
• The Legislature should amend Penal Code section 832.5 to include a standardized definition of "civilian complaint."
• Law enforcement agencies should review all available video footage (from sources such as bodyworn cameras, dashboard cameras, CCTV cameras, police drones, and cellphones) in complaint investigations, to ensure that investigations are as thorough and impartial as possible. • Law enforcement agencies should incorporate the principles of root cause analysis into the complaint process. To ensure that complaint investigations are meaningful as agency-wide learning opportunities, agencies should establish a blame-free analysis process that analyzes all underlying factors that contributed to an incident and takes action to prevent undesirable outcomes in the future.
POST TRAINING AND RECRUITMENT
This year, the RIPA POST Subcommittee met with POST Executive Director Manny Alvarez and other POST staff to discuss POST's responses to Board recommendations. For the first time, and following the Board's recommendation in past reports, POST provided written responses to the Board's recommendations directly to the POST Commission in a report presented at their September 21, 2023 meeting. POST supported several recommendations and responded that other recommendations were already sufficiently covered, POST lacked the resources to implement them, or the recommendations were outside the scope of the Commission's work. In part, POST committed to:
• Adopting the Board's recommendation to develop and adopt separate guidelines for courses related to racial and identity profiling, apart from publication in the course curriculum. • Soliciting the Board's participation throughout the process of developing the separate guidelines. The Report highlights suggested topics for the guidelines. 20 2024 RIPA Report
Executive Summary
2 - 34
In addition to discussion of the Board's interactions with POST, this year's Report highlights updates and Board feedback based on its review of POST courses related to racial and identity profiling in 2022 and 2023, including the Museum of Tolerance Racial and Identity Profiling Train-the-Trainer Curriculum Update and the outline of the Public Safety Dispatchers' Basic Course.
Over the past seven years, the RIPA Board has conducted extensive reviews of the training and curriculum materials provided by POST. The RIPA data shows that across all years of the RIPA data collection (2018-2022), disparities persist in how individuals perceived as Black, Hispanic/Latine(x), and transgender are treated. This information should dictate the training necessary to reduce and eliminate racial and identity profiling while also improving officer safety in the state of California. With this background in mind, the Board's Report makes the following recommendations to POST for protocols and procedures and in other areas for course development and updates:
• Integrate a review timeline by the Board and the community for POST course development and updates.
• Seek community and stakeholder input earlier in the course development process and incorporate their feedback before finalizing the training. • Build in mechanisms to evaluate the effectiveness of all POST courses on racial and identity profiling.
• Emphasize accountability for discriminatory practices by peace officers and the responsibility of supervisors.
RIPA REGULATIONS
The Report summarizes amendments to the RIPA regulations. The primary amendment adds a new RIPA reporting requirement requiring law enforcement officers to report the reason for stop that was communicated to the stopped person. The regulations were also amended to clarify the different categories of traffic violations that must be reported (moving, non-moving, and equipment violations) and the scope of the California Department of Justice's obligation to disclose stop data to the public.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION ENACTED IN 2022
The Report includes a section on recently enacted legislation related to RIPA. Assembly Bill No. 443 (2023-2024 Reg. Sess.) requires POST to define and develop guidance regarding "biased conduct." Assembly Bill No. 645 (2023-2024 Reg. Sess.) establishes a speed safety pilot program to measure the impact of automated speed enforcement technology in a select number of cities and counties. 21 2024 RIPA Report
Executive Summary