Loading...
17. Claremont PolicingFile #: 3393 Claremont City Council Agenda Report TO: TARA SCHULTZ, CITY MANAGER FROM: SHELLY VANDER VEEN, POLICE CHIEF DATE: JUNE 23, 2020 411R•IF(:T- CLAREMONT POLICING SUMMARY Item No: 17. Reviewed by: City Manager: TS Finance Director: AP The Claremont Police Department values the strong relationships we have developed with our community. We strive to protect and serve with the utmost integrity. The Police Department is also committed to continual improvement and building on our community partnerships. Since the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, the City has received numerous letters from community members demanding transparency, adoption of #8CantWait policies, and asking the City to respond to unsheltered residents and people with mental illness within our society without Police involvement. This report contains statistical information within the "Police Scorecard" of Campaign Zero, information on where the Police Department stands on policy reform goals of #8CantWait, as well as a summary of how the Police Department works in partnership with the Human Services Department and our community partners on homelessness. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council review and comment. FINANCIAL REVIEW The staff cost to prepare this report and administer this program is estimated at $2,500 and is included in the operating budget of the Police Department. CLAREMONT Page 1 of 11 Printed on 6/18/2020 ANAI Y414 Campaign Zero Campaign Zero is a police reform advocacy group pushing for comprehensive policies that are aimed at reducing police violence - limiting police interventions, improving community interactions, and ensuring accountability. They built the "Police Scorecard," or database, to evaluate policing in California. The data/statistics used in their "Scorecard" campaign, along with the related statistics for Claremont Police Department are as follows - 1 . ollows: 1. Police Violence • # of incidents with Less Lethal Force • # of incidents with Deadly Force • # of people killed or seriously injured and with what (ex. unarmed, gun, vehicle) • Where police say they saw a gun but no gun was found - "gun perceived never found" YEAR Less Lethal Force * Deadly Force (indicate race) Killed/Seriously Injured Said gun, but no gun found 2013 6 0 0 0 2014 13 1 (Hispanic)** 1 (gun)** 0 2015 9 0 0 0 2016 9 0 0 0 2017 30 0 0 0 2018 11 0 0 0 2019 23 0 0 0 *Less Lethal Force includes: physical force w/ injury (including complaint of pain / scrapes), pepper spray, TASER, K9, physical strikes ** Same incident CLAREMONT Page 2 of 11 Printed on 6/18/2020 To further expand the statistics, the following chart shows deadly force used by Claremont Police Department over the last 20 years. YEAR Deadly Force (indicate race) 1999 Male, Blk 1999 Female, Asian 2003 Male, White 2014 Male, Hispanic 2015 0 2016 0 2017 0 2018 0 2019 0 % of Race (Black, "Latinx", API, Other, White) - total city population, total people arrested, total people killed or seriously injured all by race Arrests: YEAR Black White Hispanic sian Unk Other Claremont Resident Resides in Other 2013 331 587 857 16 0 58 47 1,502 2014 298 515 796 11 0 53 15 1,358 2015 294 550 864 8 1 87 54 1,550 2016 315 557 842 7 1 85 83 1,524 2017 325 610 896 6 0 78 29 1,686 2018 350 482 846 12 0 54 24 1,520 2019 358 514 958 13 3 72 81 1,637 VG 324 545 866 10 1 70 of Total 17.8% 30% 47.7% 0.6% 0.1% 3.8% CLAREMONT Page 3 of 11 Printed on 6/18/2020 Citations (resulting from traffic stops): YEAR Black White Hispanic Psian Jnk Dther laremont Resident Resides in Dther 2013 341 2,100 1,530 92 58 747 1,199 3,669 2014 375 2,094 1,712 102 75 390 1,163 3,885 2015 88 1,387 1,410 B2 57 594 43 2,975 2016 72 1,063176 ,376 3 9 70 55 122 ,638 2017 04 50 92 9 14 41 26 ,014 2018 169 58 22 122 2 56 1,627 2019 170 05 194 29 246 491 1,829 VG 260 1,251 1,245 101 42 478 714 ,662 % of total 7.7% 37% 36.9% 3% 1.2% 14.2% Population / Demographics: 2018 Population Black White Hispanic Asian Other Claremont 36,466 5.2 50.1 26.4 13.6 4.7 Los Angeles County 10,283,729 7.9 26.5 48.4 14.3 2.9 San Bernardino County 2,174,938 8.0 29.8 52.3 6.7 3.2 VG 0 7% 35.5% 42.4% 11.5% 3.6% *Statistics from 2018 SCAG (Southern Calif. Association of Governments) Reports 2. Police Accountability • # of reported Total Civilian Complaints • # of reported Use of Force Complaints • # of reported Complaints of Police Discrimination • # of reported Alleged Crimes Committed by Police YEAR Civilian Complaints Use of Force Complaints Complaints of Discrimination Crimes Committed by Police 2013 10 2 1 0 2014 3 0 0 0 2015 1 0 0 0 2016 3 1 1 0 2017 3 0 2 0 2018 2 0 1 0 2019 5 1 1 0 CLAREMONT Page 4 of 11 Printed on 6/18/2020 3. Approach to Policing # of Arrests by Year # of Misdemeanor Arrests (Arrests for Low Level Offenses) % of total Arrests By Type o All misdemeanors o Drug possession o Violent crime # of Homicides Unsolved % of Homicides Unsolved by Race Police Funding Amount YEAR Arrests Total Misdemeanor Arrests (open charges) Drug Possession Arrests Violent Crime* Arrests UNSOLVED Homicides Unsolved by Race Police Funding Amount 2013 1,849 770 217 15 0 N/A $9,735,283 2014 1,683 725 221 24 0 N/A 10,395,060 2015 1,814 809 319 17 0 N/A 10,750,065 111,505,899 2016 1,815 823 394 24 0 N/A 11,237,870 2017 1,926 924 517 28 0 N/A 2018 1,757 776 408 15 0 N/A 11,942,363 2019 1,918 894 497 22 0 N/A 12,496,360 *Violent Crime= rape, robbery, homicide, aggravated assault #8CantWait #8CantWait was a 2016 project from Campaign Zero. Since the killing of George Floyd, there has been a renewed call for law enforcement agencies to adopt eight policies that the campaign's creators say reduce police violence. The City has received numerous letters demanding that the Police Department adhere to the policy proposals of #8CantWait. The Police Department believes that its existing policies and training are largely aligned with #8CantWait principles. In 2019, law enforcement and community stakeholders throughout the State of California engaged in discussions that ultimately set a new legal standard for peace officers' use of deadly force in California (Assembly Bill 392, Weber), which set national precedent by establishing a minimum use of force policy standard for all departments (Senate Bill 230, Caballero). Most of the policies outlined in the #8CantWait campaign have been captured by these two new landmark laws. However, several provisions, most notably the requirement that officers exhaust all alternatives, were not included in either bill due to shared concerns by law enforcement and policymakers. CLAREMONT Page 5 of 11 Printed on 6/18/2020 Instead, alternatives to those provisions were embraced to accomplish the shared goal of reducing deadly force incidents. Outlined below are the provisions in the #8CantWait platform already captured directly in statute, the Claremont Police Department Policy Manual, or concerns and alternatives with what is being proposed: Ban Chokeholds and Strangulations: Chokeholds and strangleholds are not taught nor used by Claremont Police Officers. Choking or strangling individuals would be classified as deadly force given the likely resulting injury would be serious bodily injury or death. There are neck restraint techniques that have been used by members of the Claremont Police Department. Claremont Police Department has been trained in and has used the carotid control hold with great success with no injury. This technique has been taught in conjunction with a system of application of pressure to the sides of the neck, avoiding the windpipe, thus restricting blood flow resulting in temporary unconsciousness without injury. This technique is used regularly in sport, such as jujitsu, to overcome larger stronger opponents. Many law enforcement personnel are trained in the application of jujitsu techniques- not chokeholds, or strangulation. Despite the distinction between chokeholds/strangulation, and neck restraints such as the carotid control hold, Claremont Police Department recognizes the complexity of the issue and on June 4, 2020, the use of carotid control holds by Claremont Police Officers is no longer an approved use of force technique. De -Escalation Requirement: Senate Bill (SB) 230 required that "officers utilize de-escalation techniques, crisis intervention tactics, and other alternatives to force when feasible." SB230 also mandates officers to conduct all duties in a manner that is fair and unbiased. Additionally, SB230 requires all officers to be trained in alternatives to deadly force and de-escalation techniques. The concept of de-escalation has been a fundamental principle in law enforcement for time eternal. In recent history, the term "de-escalation" has received a great deal of emphasis in law enforcement training. It is absolutely a fundamental responsibility of law enforcement to attempt to de-escalate individuals in crisis when the totality of the circumstances allows an opportunity to do so. De- escalation techniques permeate through the culture of Claremont Police Department, beginning with the POST police academy and continuing through field training and in-service training. The idea of creating space and separation through de-escalation is included in every aspect of police interactions. Officers receive crisis intervention and tactical communication training, and regularly practice these techniques when training in areas such as defensive tactics and use of force. Officers are also taught techniques such as active listening skills to assist in achieving cooperation from individuals in crisis. While de-escalation and resolution of crisis situations is always a primary goal of law enforcement, "requiring de-escalation" is problematic. The reality is that de-escalation requires cooperation and while officers can do everything possible to try to achieve de-escalation, if an individual does not cooperate with the efforts to de-escalate, then officers typically must make choices based on the totality of the circumstances. Those options can vary from disengagement (walking away), to the use of force, and even use of deadly force depending on the immediate threat that the individual poses to the officer or others. Because of the multitude of variables and circumstances that officers deal with during the course of their duties, mandating one course of action is simply problematic. CLAREMONT Page 6 of 11 Printed on 6/18/2020 These concerns were in fact taken into consideration in the drafting of the recent amendments to California Penal Code section 835a, which went into effect on January 1, 2020. Specifically, the amended legislative enactments states, "shall use other available resources and techniques if reasonably safe and feasible to an objectively reasonable officer." This statute is more than sufficient to address this concern. Require Warning Before Shooting: Penal Code 835a (amended through Assembly Bill 392 evaluation) states: "where feasible, a peace officer shall, prior to the use of force, make reasonable efforts to identify themselves as a peace officer and to warn that deadly force may be used, unless the officer has objectively reasonable grounds to believe the person is aware of those facts." This requirement is consistent with federal case law. A warning preceding the use of deadly or non -deadly force is also contained within the Claremont Police Department's Policy Manual, which states: Policy 400.3.1 Determining Objectively Reasonable Force (in part) While various degrees of force exist, each officer is expected to use only that degree of force that is objectively reasonable to perform their duties in accordance with this policy. A verbal warning should precede the use of deadly or non -deadly force where feasible. The language of the statute and policy indicating that a warning should be given "where feasible" appropriately acknowledges that it is not always possible nor prudent for an officer to warn someone before using deadly force. Require To Exhaust all Alternatives Before Shooting: Arguably, the most controversial provision in #8CantWait's platform. This requirement was rejected in the Assembly Bill (AB) 392 debate because of the untenable position it puts officers and departments in, by permitting second-guessing of split-second decisions. Instead, the focus should be on training alternatives to deadly force, de-escalation, and proportional force. Although the requirement to "exhaust all alternatives" was rejected, this concept was addressed in the amended Penal Code 835a. The amended statute was crafted to deal with a balancing of these concerns wherein it states, "In determining whether deadly force is necessary, officers shall evaluate each situation in light of the particular circumstances of each case, and shall use other available resources and techniques if reasonably safe and feasible to an objectively reasonable officer." Duty to Intervene: This concept, also referred to as bystander liability, is contained within the Claremont Police Department's Policy Manual. Officers are guilty of failure to intervene where the use of excessive force was apparent and the officer had the opportunity to intervene and failed to do so. The policy states: Policy 400.4 Duty to Intervene and Report Any employee present and observing another employee using force that is clearly beyond that which is objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, shall, as soon as safely CLAREMONT Page 7 of 11 Printed on 6/18/2020 possible, intercede to prevent the use of such excessive force. Ban Shooting at Moving Vehicles: Claremont Police Officers are not forbidden from shooting at moving vehicles. While this may appear to be a simple provision to implement, it is absolutely not appropriate to mandate such a barrier to action when the totality of the circumstances may warrant shooting at a moving vehicle. Setting aside some of the more obvious circumstances such as the vehicle pursuit and car -to -car shooting in the terrorist attack in San Bernardino that may require an officer to make such a choice, there are unfortunately highly volatile incidents where this choice must be made. In fact, the United States Supreme Court has decided at least two cases since 2015, involving shooting at moving vehicles where the outrageously reckless driving posed a serious threat to the safety of others. In one unanimous decision and another 7-1 decision, the highest court in the land found that the shooting at a moving vehicle was not unreasonable nor in violation of clearly established law. Again, outright prohibitions in all circumstances does not account for situations where the driver of a vehicle may be threatening death or great bodily injury to others. Shooting at moving vehicles is addressed within the Claremont Police Department Policy Manual, stating: Claremont Police Department Policy 856.12 Use Of Firearms The use of firearms against fleeing or approaching vehicles has proven to be generally ineffective and involves the inherent dangers of discharging a firearm. Officers should not utilize firearms during a pursuit unless the conditions and circumstances dictate that such use reasonably appears necessary to protect life. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit an officer from using a firearm to stop a suspect from using a vehicle as a deadly weapon. Require Use of Force Continuum: A Use of Force Continuum describes an escalating series of actions an officer may take to resolve a situation. The use of force continuum is an outdated model that has proven impractical, even dangerous, when applied in real life situations. Most police policies, including Claremont Police Department's, include such factors to consider when evaluating and making decisions to include officer/subject factors such as the age, size and relative strength of the officer(s) versus the suspect (s); number of officers versus number of suspects; specialized training and experience of the officer or suspect; injuries or exhaustion of officers or suspect; whether the suspect(s) is under the influence of alcohol or drugs or mentally ill; environmental factors; and proximity to potential weapons. The evaluation of the totality of the circumstances as to what is reasonable is complex and does not fit well within the parameters of a matrix. Instead, techniques should be used focusing on officers creating space and separation in an attempt to utilize de-escalation techniques, which is captured in the Police Department's training protocols. Require Comprehensive Reporting: Under AB71, law enforcement agencies must report to California DOJ all use of force incidents wherein a firearm was discharged and all incidents in which a civilian died during a police encounter. Claremont Police Department adheres to that law. SB230 also requires officers to report excessive force they witness. This mandate is contained within Claremont Police Department's Policy Manual which states: Policy 400.4 Duty to Intervene and Report Any employee present and observing another employee using force that is clearly beyond that CLAREMONT Page 8 of 11 Printed on 6/18/2020 which is objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, shall, as soon as safely possible, intercede to prevent the use of such excessive force. Employees shall immediately report these observations to a supervisor. Complaint History: Since 2004, the State of California has maintained a Citizens' Complaints Against Peace Officers (CCAPO) electronic database which has provided statewide summary information on the number of non -criminal complaints reported by citizens against law enforcement personnel, the number alleging criminal conduct of either a felony or misdemeanor, and the number of complaints that were sustained. In 2016, data collection specific to the number of complaints with a component of racial profiling allegations was added. The data contained in the database is submitted annually by law enforcement agencies and is governed by Penal Code Section 13012. In order to accurately report this data to the California Department of Justice (DOJ), DOJ recommends that Law Enforcement Agencies "explicitly inquire on their citizen complaint forms whether the complainant alleges racial or identity profiling and if so, the specific type(s) of racial or identity profiling alleged." It is further recommended that Law Enforcement Agencies, "not restrict Complainants from being able to select more than one option to account for instances where a complainant alleges more than one type of racial or identity profiling." The Police Department's "Citizen Comment Form" is designed to adhere to these requirements. A copy of the Department's "Citizen Comment Form" is included with this report (Attachment). Claremont Police Department collects the data and has presented the information each year during public meetings to the Police Commission, and the related agenda reports can be found on the City's webpage. These statistics are also provided in the Police Department's annual report which is presented in public City Council and Police Commission meetings and is posted annually on the Police Department's webpage. The following are those complaint statistics along with statistics to indicate the number of citizen contacts each year: YEAR Civilian Complaints Complaint w/ Racial Profiling (legation Internal Investigations Calls for Service Traffic Stops Arrests Citations Issued (Traffic) 2013 10 2 4 26,461 1,849 6,412 2014 3 0 1 28,210 1,683 5,680 2015 1 0 4 27,589 1,814 3,853 2016 3 0 2 28,055 5,170 1,815 5,129 2017 3 2 0 32,543 5,704 1,926 4,014 2018 2 1 3 32,133 4,931 1,757 2,072 2019 5 1 1 30,644 4,854 1,917 2,355 "Not tracked in statistical databases CLAREMONT Page 9 of 11 Printed on 6/18/2020 City Partnership Approach to Homelessness Over the years, due to increased homelessness in the San Gabriel Valley region, including Claremont, the Claremont Police Department worked with the Human Services Department in implementing the City's Homeless Services Plan. The Police Department has received training provided by Tri -City Mental Health to inform officers on how to detect behavioral signs of mental illness in the field. In addition, the Police Department also works with the part-time Homeless Services Advocate who is based out of the Human Services Department. The Homeless Services Advocate administers outreach and intake services when police officers encounter unsheltered individuals. This collaboration allows for an efficient pipeline from homelessness into the continuum of care provided by the City and its community partners. Furthermore, late last year, the City secured two shelter beds at the Hope For Home Pomona Shelter with Measure H dollars. Since then, Claremont Police Officers can make direct referrals to the Hope For Home Pomona Shelter when they come across unsheltered individuals who are willing to accept services with communication with the Director of Human Services. Year Homeless Disposition of Call Calls for Service Not Locate Assisted No Probler Arrested/ Cited / 51 2013-16 2017 522 144 273 43 62 2018 936 297 469 77 92 2019 1,024 310 493 126 95 'Not tracked as a separate call for service prior to 1U1 The information within this report is provided so that the community and the Police Department can engage in further discussion to promote peace and understanding. While the Police Department believes that our current policies and practices are consistent with Campaign Zero's objectives, we are committed to continuing our review and assessment of our policies and practices. Building trust within the community involves being open and honest about what we say, what we do, and what we say we should be doing. Therefore, we continue to strive for transparency as reflected within this report. Working together with those we serve will bring positive change and build even stronger relationships within our community. RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff has evaluated the agenda item in relationship to the City's strategic and visioning documents and finds the following: General Plan - This item addresses the following goals and objectives of the General Plan: CLAREMONT Page 10 of 11 Printed on 6/18/2020 6-1: Work to promote a safe community in which residents can live, work and play. 6.9.9: Provide effective and comprehensive policing services and enforce laws in an equitable way. 2019-20 Budget - This item addresses the following goals and objectives of the Police Department's Work Plan - PS -1 - lan: PS-1: Effectively manage department operations. PS -3: Maintain a safe community, in which citizens can reside, work and visit. Youth and Family Master Plan - This item addresses the following goals and objectives of the Youth and Family Master Plan: Objective 8. Provide a Safe, Secure and Sustainable Environment CEQA REVIEW This presentation is not a "project" as that term is defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA Guideline Section 15378(b)(5) specifically excludes administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment from its definition of "project." Therefore, no environmental review is needed at this time. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS Due to the current health orders related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City's regular agenda distribution process has been suspended as public review copies cannot be placed at their regular locations due to facility closures, or limited access. In accordance with Government Code Section 8634, this item was given widespread publicity and notice, and posted on the City Website. If you desire a copy, please contact the City Clerk's office. Submitted by: Shelly Vander Veen Police Chief Attachment: Citizen Comment Form CLAREMONT Page 11 of 11 Printed on 6/18/2020 ATTACHMENT CLAREMONT RECEIVED BY DATE AND TIME REFERENCE POLICE DEPARTMENT FORM WAS NUMBER: CITIZEN COMMENT FORM Mail RECEIVED In Person By Phone A.M./P.M. Please Check: 0 Commendation Suggestion 0 Complaint Regarding Policies/Procedures Complaint Regarding Officer Misconduct 0 Racial or Identity Profiling Complaint (If yes, indicate which type) Check all that apply 0 Race Ethnicity 0 Religion r..] Age [J Nationality El Gender Identity E] Physical Disability 0 Gender 0 Sexual Orientation 0 Mental Disability .. ........ RertinParts . ........ . . ..... . .. Last Name: First Name Middle Name: Home Phone... Number Work Ph66W Number. c-.1— - — . . . . ........ Home_A_d,­d­re" s_s:City: . ...... State: p: ..dovnfiiFt, ..ent Information ........ . ..... ­­_.....__­_._.._._._.__­. ..... . ...... -.-..._...1_.._. . ......... ......... ... t iv Date of CoWicvEvWnF: Time "and -Location o-f"-C-'o'-n"t"a-c-t/E"-v,e--nt: . ...... COMMENDATION/COMPLAINT/SUGGESTION Please write your comments below in detai9, You may attach additional sheets d necessary. For more information about the complaint 1proceqs, lease read the aitached brochure, . . ......... . . . . ....... . ... . ..... If you are . ...... .... . ...... ... . .. . ....... . ....... . . . ..... . . ...... . . . I'll . ...... . .. . ....... . . ...... . . ...... ­ . . ....... . . ............ . .......... . ...... . . .......... . . . . ..... . . . ... . ......... . . . ......... . . . ........ . . . . ......... .... . ...... . . ..... . ....... . . . . ........ . ............ . . .... . ...... ­._..___.._.­­_ . . . . . . ........ attachlnc addNaonal sheets, please indicatethe number es, Additional sheets !§,. must be,s!a WitnessInformation ­._... . . ....... . 1) Last Name: First Name Middle Name. Home Phone Number Phone Number: ---------- 14 jrTs . . . .. ......... .. . . . .. State: Zip: 2) Last Name First Name: Middle Name-- __­,_[_P�n� e- P"ho—ne N_­u­_mbe­r": Work Phone Number: . ........ . . . . -11, . ....... w.._._._ ......... . . . . _L . ...... . ........ . . Home Address: City: State: Zip: Involved Officer or Department Employee Information 1.} Last Name: First Name: Identification Number: _?LLast Name, First Name: Identification Number: 3) Last Name: First Name: Identification Number: 4) Last Name: First Name: Identification Number: