Tag: DOJ report on BPD

  • The DOJ’s War on Broken Windows?

    Update: The links have changed (oops!) since these were first published. Here are links to all my August 2016 posts on the DOJ report on the BPD.
    1 https://copinthehood.com/initial-thoughts-on-doj-report-on-2/
    2 https://copinthehood.com/the-doj-is-wrong-1-2/
    3 https://copinthehood.com/the-dojs-war-on-broken-window-2/
    4 https://copinthehood.com/cant-you-take-joke-2/
    5 https://copinthehood.com/the-doj-is-wrong-2-n-word-2/
    6 https://copinthehood.com/the-doj-is-wrong-3-that-damn-kid-on-2/
    7 https://copinthehood.com/the-doj-is-wrong-4-on-diggs-dig-2/
    8 https://copinthehood.com/the-doj-is-right-1-2/
    9 https://copinthehood.com/the-doj-is-right-2-actual-department-is-2/
    10 https://copinthehood.com/the-doj-is-right-3-actual-department-is-2/
    11 https://copinthehood.com/the-doj-is-right-4-actual-department-is-2/

    This flew in over the transom:

    As someone who also works in a department with a consent decree in place, I found the DoJ’s report on Baltimore very interesting.

    It seems like a lot of what the DoJ objects to is not actually a constitutional violation, but rather a public policy decision to have “zero tolerance” policing. The words “zero tolerance” are used a lot (phrase used 32 times). There is much written about loitering (word comes up 35 times) stops and arrests.

    My jurisdiction has no loitering law, and no major problem with open air drug dealing in residential areas. Trespassing arrests are a rarity, to the point that citizens and business owners have become very angry with our lack of action at times. Technically, if someone (myself or a property owner or a posted notice) says that trespassing is prohibited, and someone trespasses after receiving verbal notice, they can be stopped and arrested. A property owner says “I told that guy to leave and he didn’t” – boom, we have PC. In practice, we almost never do this, because our supervisors and prosecutors don’t want us to and because we all know the DoJ is watching and dislikes this kind of police work.

    The DoJ’s objections to enforcement of these laws is written in such a way that the strict enforcement of these laws is then juxtaposed with extreme examples where officers probably violated Terry. In any significantly large department, if you look long enough, you will find Terry violations, including some pretty stupid ones. And there are some damn stupid ones in this report. But it’s not clear to me that loitering and trespassing arrests as a crime prevention strategy are inherently unconstitutional. Trespassing and loitering laws can be strictly enforced in a legal way, if you have supervisors and training that adequately address what is needed to establish probable cause and reasonable suspicion (which BPD may indeed lack).

    But it does seem to me that what the DoJ actually objects to is the policing strategy of low level pedestrian stops and enforcement. The DoJ’s message here is pretty clear: broken-windows policing is over, and if you do it, we will come at you for every Terry violation and make it out to be a pattern and practice brought about by a public policy decision to emphasize low level enforcement. “Broken Windows” policing might be a good or bad public policy, but it seems like an innovation for the DoJ to now claim it is inherently unconstitutional.

  • A pattern of abuse?

    Today, no police departmentshould be surprised by what the Department of Justice is looking for,” said Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, which has extensively studied such investigations.

    I’m not a lawyer and don’t think like one, so I’m a bit slow in realizing how the DOJ goes about its business. It’s not enough for them to say “there are problems and here’s what needs to be done.” The goal is a consent decree (in this case one that shifts blame to long-gone mayor from over a decade ago), and this is a necessary precondition. The DOJ has a kind of template for this report:

    Provide anecdotes of bad policing. (Some of these will be true.)

    Highlight worst practices.

    Throw in some (dubious) statistical analysis to “prove” racism about use of force, bias, or unlawful searches and seizures.

    And voila! A “pattern” of “unconstitutional” and racist policing. Here’s one critique of this business from Matthew Hickman, a professor and former DOJ statistician, about their 2012 Seattle report:

    The Department of Justice investigation of the Seattle Police Department was launched over concerns about eroding public trust and confidence in the Seattle police, but I am far more concerned about whether DOJ deserves our trust and confidence. The public release of DOJ’s report highlighted two empirical findings that stretch credibility beyond its limits, and DOJ is presently trying to force the city to institute reforms without DOJ revealing the methods that produced its findings. If Seattle does not push back, DOJ will end up causing more harm than good.

    I’m frankly shocked that DOJ went public with such a ridiculous statistic; it’s totally inconsistent with the available research literature on police use of force, and stands in defiance of reason. I can only conclude that DOJ had no other goal than to incite the public and build popular support for a baseless political cause.

    If they had invested in collecting these data on a systematic basis, they would have the larger context that might make their “pattern or practice” investigations more meaningful. As a consequence, we simply don’t know if Seattle’s data are “too high,” “too low,” or “just right.”

    In sum, there are legitimate questions about the quality of DOJ’s analyses here in Seattle as well as the expertise of those who produced them. As of this writing, DOJ has failed to provide the details of its methodology. It is doing so in hopes that Seattle will voluntarily enter into a costly consent decree without questioning DOJ’s highly questionable findings.

    Yet there is ample evidence that DOJ has built a house of cards in support of a political agenda. The empirical findings of its investigation simply don’t pass the “smell test” and will not stand up to legal or scientific scrutiny. The city of Seattle should call DOJ’s bluff, and settle for nothing less than a formal apology.

    And when an agency did call the DOJ’s bluff, the DOJ lost.

  • The DOJ is wrong (1): Trespass

    Update: The links have changed (oops!) since these were first published. Here are links to all my August 2016 posts on the DOJ report on the BPD.
    1 https://copinthehood.com/initial-thoughts-on-doj-report-on-2/
    2 https://copinthehood.com/the-doj-is-wrong-1-2/
    3 https://copinthehood.com/the-dojs-war-on-broken-window-2/
    4 https://copinthehood.com/cant-you-take-joke-2/
    5 https://copinthehood.com/the-doj-is-wrong-2-n-word-2/
    6 https://copinthehood.com/the-doj-is-wrong-3-that-damn-kid-on-2/
    7 https://copinthehood.com/the-doj-is-wrong-4-on-diggs-dig-2/
    8 https://copinthehood.com/the-doj-is-right-1-2/
    9 https://copinthehood.com/the-doj-is-right-2-actual-department-is-2/
    10 https://copinthehood.com/the-doj-is-right-3-actual-department-is-2/
    11 https://copinthehood.com/the-doj-is-right-4-actual-department-is-2/

    There’s a lot of good in this report. I’ll get to that eventually. It’s a hard report to comment on in its entirety because there are different authors and different sections. Some are well documented and spot-on. Others are bullshit and fluff. But the parts that bother me most are the legal errors. I expect better more from the friggin’ Department of Justice.

    Let me get these off my chest. Late last night I wrote this to somebody:

    As a description of police culture and day-to-day to policing, the report too often just doesn’t get it. I found errors based on a few things I know or could fact check from home. And given that I know a few of the stories are bullshit, it makes me question all of them. This is the DOJ, not some anti-police rag. They need to make sure everything they say is true. And it’s simply not.

    Page 37 of the report describes a loitering arrest that “violates constitutional due process requirements”:

    The officer then–without any warning–arrested the men for trespassing…. In September 2011, a BPD officer similarly arrested a man “loitering directly beside the 2501 E. Preston Street Greater Missionary Baptist Church.” The officer made the arrest after asking the man “why he was in the area” and learning that the man “had no business near the area of the [church’s] steps.” Each of these arrests violates constitutional due process requirements because the arrested individuals lacked notice that their apparently innocent behavior was unlawful.

    This is the DOJ. These are serious charges. They need to be right.

    The loitering law does indeed state (among other things) that a person must be warned before being arrested. [The bigger violation among police in making loitering arrests is ignoring the essential “in such a manner as to interfere with the free passage of (pedestrian/vehicle) traffic” part of the law. But that’s another story.]

    [It’s why, if you’ve ever been to Baltimore, there are so many “no loitering/no trespassing” signs on stoops. Those signs tell cops, “Yes please, go right ahead and keep people from sitting on my steps.” Now whether or not we want police to make any loitering or trespass arrests is a another issue, but many residents (and churches) in Baltimore don’t want to come home from work and find drug dealers on their stoop. Honest people may not want to leave their house and have to ask drunks to step aside. Huh? Imagine that. But the DOJ doesn’t mention that a lot of low-level police enforcement is initiated by citizens and politicians. What are cops supposed to do? Ignore calls for service because it’s “just” a minor crime hardly worth enforcing?]

    Well I don’t police that block anymore (never did much, actually, it was Sector 3), but we can all zip over to 2501 E. Preston on google streetview! (What a world we live in) There’s a “no loitering/no trespassing” sign right there, clearly visible (if blurred out). Police do not have to issue a verbal warning for this trespass arrest, because the sign provides the warning. This is covered under §6-401 (formally Art 27 Sec 576, from which I’m copying): “…did trespass and enter upon the property of ______ said property being posted against trespassers in a conspicuous manner.” This arrest is clearly not a violation of “constitutional due process requirements.” How can the Department of Justice be ignorant of the law?

    [Originally I said “loitering” when I meant trespassing. That makes me a bit ignorant, too. But along with being a bit rusty on all the BS charges, I was thrown off because the damn report says he was “loitering.” Indeed, you arrest a loiterer for trespassing. I also think we would sometimes colloquially call such arrests “loitering.” But the actual charge is “trespassing.” I’ve updated the post a bit to reflect this.]

  • Can’t you take a joke?

    Can’t you take a joke?

    Update: The links have changed (oops!) since these were first published. Here are links to all my August 2016 posts on the DOJ report on the BPD.
    1 https://copinthehood.com/initial-thoughts-on-doj-report-on-2/
    2 https://copinthehood.com/the-doj-is-wrong-1-2/
    3 https://copinthehood.com/the-dojs-war-on-broken-window-2/
    4 https://copinthehood.com/cant-you-take-joke-2/
    5 https://copinthehood.com/the-doj-is-wrong-2-n-word-2/
    6 https://copinthehood.com/the-doj-is-wrong-3-that-damn-kid-on-2/
    7 https://copinthehood.com/the-doj-is-wrong-4-on-diggs-dig-2/
    8 https://copinthehood.com/the-doj-is-right-1-2/
    9 https://copinthehood.com/the-doj-is-right-2-actual-department-is-2/
    10 https://copinthehood.com/the-doj-is-right-3-actual-department-is-2/
    11 https://copinthehood.com/the-doj-is-right-4-actual-department-is-2/

    One of the beliefs common to many conservative cops is that liberals can’t take a joke. I don’t think this is true (how many comedians are conservative?), but I hate when conservaes are right. From page 25 of the DOJ report:

    Indeed, many BPD supervisors who were trained under the prior enforcement paradigm continue to encourage officers to prioritize short-term suppression, including aggressive use of stops, frisks, and misdemeanor arrests.

    That’s something a bit sad and desperate about this report’s (and city leaders) constant attempt to blame today’s problems on 16 years ago.

    The report goes on:

    A flyer celebrating loitering arrests was posted in several BPD districts. The flyer depicted three officers from one of BPD’s specialized units known as Violent Crime Impact Division, or VCID, leading a handcuffed man wearing a hoodie along a city sidewalk towards a police transport van, with the text “VCID: Striking fear into loiters [sic] City-wide.”

    People, this is not a motivational poster. It is not celebrating loitering lock ups. It is… a joke. It is making fun of — mocking even — a specialized unit for making bullshit loitering locks up.

    I find it funny. Do you have to be a cop to get it? I don’t know. But couldn’t they find anybody with a clue to read a draft and red-flag this? “It’s obviously a joke,” my liberal-with-a-sense-of-humor wife spells out for the humorously challenged, “because it’s using the template of the fake corporate motivational poster.” Get it?

    But if the DOJ observes don’t get this basic level of police culture (or humor), I question a lot of their observations. (I don’t know how much you can learn in “dozens” of ride along in “all the districts.” Because that means about 3 ride-alongs per district. Does it even equal one complete shift? I don’t know.)

    Chapter Three of Cop in the Hood does start with a “motivational” speech at roll call:

    All right you maggots, let’s lock people up! They don’t pay you to stand around. I want production! I want lockups! Unlike the citizens of the Eastern District, you are required to work for your government check.

    The sergeant even made a little sign out of the last sentence and put it up in our sector cubical. Personally, I thought it was funny. In the end, he was told to take it down. Seems like nobody can take a joke.

    Update: Over on twitter, I was trying to explain to a Sun reporter who also didn’t get the joke. David Simon, who speaks Police and Journalistic, stepped in to help translate:

    The office poster we’re talking about is actually a subtle and appropriate critique of bad policing.

    Everything I know about cop humor says that poster is there as sarcasm, to which cops are entitled.

    Poster not motivational, but a critique of weak arrests; station house humor to which cops are entitled.

    Every profession uses humor to critique lesser standards, affirm for better.

    Cop humor. And in the context of stationhouse ball-busting, rather funny. Not affirmation.

    The snark about bad journalism that used to be on the walls of The Sun was affirmation for better.

    One Xmas, Homicide unit pasted wings on morgue photos of dead gangsters & hung on tree.

    For attorney: “Anyone can convict the guilty. For an innocent man, you need a great lawyer.” Cynicism serving ethic.

    Fuck that much self-righteousness. Every profession is entitled to its own interior wit. Especially the tough ones.

  • Forms, forms, everywhere forms

    Again from someone else. This is a former Baltimore Police Officer:

    What did you make the of the discussion on pp.25-26? [concerning massive number of stops] I happen to agree that lots of Terry stops go unreported. That citizen contact form is a pain to fill out. But in arguing that many Terry stops go unreported, the DOJ notes that a “stop form” wasn’t completed in ANY of the 335 handgun arrests that arose from Terry stops in 2014.

    Well, duh.

    Who the hell fills out a stop form when they’re arresting the suspect? The arrest report — a full-blown incident report as well as the probable cause statement entered during booking — serves as the narrative that explains all the facts. They expect the cop to write three reports for a stop-turned-arrest?!

    I expect hardly anybody fills out the stop form when the end up making an arrest. Did they really limit their study of Terry stops to cases in which the officer filled out a citizen contact form? If so, it seems they ended up excluding almost all of the cases in which the Terry stop resulted in an arrest. And then they triumphantly concluded that hardly any Terry stops result in an arrest or citation. (By “citation” they must mean a criminal summons. I would guess that a majority of BPD officers haven’t used that book a single time in the last year). Am I missing something?

    No, I don’t think you are.

    Another person picked up on this, too:

    This is starting to look sloppy. On page 26 they say these Terry stops lead to lots and lots of arrests. On page 28: “The lack of sufficient justification for many of BPD’s pedestrian stops is underscored by the extremely low rate at which stops uncover evidence of criminal activity. In a sample of over 7,200 pedestrian stops reviewed by the Justice Department, only 271–or 3.7 percent–resulted in officers issuing a criminal citation or arrest.”

  • Mr 34Stop

    From the DOJ report on Baltimore Police:

    This data reveals that certain Baltimore residents have repeated encounters with the police on public streets and sidewalks. Indeed, the data show that one African-American man was stopped 34 times during this period in the Central and Western Districts alone, and several hundred residents were stopped at least 10 times. Countless individuals–including Freddie Gray–were stopped multiple times in the same week without being charged with a crime.

    When I hear somebody is stopped 34 times, my first thought is “what the hell is he doing.” Indeed, this does not happen at random. (I’d be more worried about a non-criminal being stopped five times.) You don’t have to be charged with a crime to be an active criminal worthy of police attention. Stops (based on reasonable suspicion) can be a tool to get criminals to desist or change their illegal behavior. If this is targeted enforcement, so be it. Let’s not forget, Freddie Gray was a drug dealer. He was charged and convicted of plenty of crimes. The real question is what do we want police to do? Don’t we want police to have (legal) “repeated encounters” with drug dealers and those prone to shoot people?

    Here is a good response from somebody else:

    OK, so?

    Who was that guy stopped 34 times? Clearly they couldn’t get him on any serious crimes in this period, but who was he? What does he do for a living? Does he have a criminal history apart from any of these possible humbles? If so, what is it? And who are his associates, if any? What is their line of work? DoJ presumes that all must be treated equal. But modern policing has, and will continue to, begin targeting individuals based on data and intelligence. Everything from camera footage to CIs to past history to social network makes some people targets of police “proactive enforcement.” This is what that looks like in the cold type of a DoJ report: not pretty.

    But how does DoJ propose BPD (and all other departments) square this circle? Let’s assume for just a moment that Mr. 34Stops runs a sharp crew and moves several kilos per week into Sandtown and Bolton Hill. He’s never in the same room or parking lot as his product, and he has two or three henchmen who take care of the violence necessary to keep things running smooth. He stays off the phone and his people are loyal. Citizens in the neighborhoods he effectively controls are terrified and silent, but for a few nods and whispers. What is a district commander supposed to do about him?

    Now, this is speculation, admittedly. Mr. 34Stops could as easily be a life-long resident, truck-driver and crossing guard who works nights, rides the bus and, maybe, enjoys a can of beer while sitting on his own or a neighbor’s stoop sometimes. The DoJ–and the U.S. Constitution–does not distinguish between these two men. Everyone else does though, because they present very different threats to order and safety.

  • Initial thoughts on the DOJ Report on policing in Baltimore

    Update: The links have changed (oops!) since these were first published. Here are links to all my August 2016 posts on the DOJ report on the BPD.
    1 https://copinthehood.com/initial-thoughts-on-doj-report-on-2/
    2 https://copinthehood.com/the-doj-is-wrong-1-2/
    3 https://copinthehood.com/the-dojs-war-on-broken-window-2/
    4 https://copinthehood.com/cant-you-take-joke-2/
    5 https://copinthehood.com/the-doj-is-wrong-2-n-word-2/
    6 https://copinthehood.com/the-doj-is-wrong-3-that-damn-kid-on-2/
    7 https://copinthehood.com/the-doj-is-wrong-4-on-diggs-dig-2/
    8 https://copinthehood.com/the-doj-is-right-1-2/
    9 https://copinthehood.com/the-doj-is-right-2-actual-department-is-2/
    10 https://copinthehood.com/the-doj-is-right-3-actual-department-is-2/
    11 https://copinthehood.com/the-doj-is-right-4-actual-department-is-2/

    My take away is that the report is 1/3 spot on, particularly in describing some of the dysfunction in the department (e.g. pp. 128-137) and some (but not all) of the abuses of Terry, 1/3 crazy and wrong (that goddamn 2007 kid on a motorbike is brought up as racist evil policing), and 1/3 bullshit and errors of commission (like the black power structure and majority-minority status of the city and police department).

    The optimist in me hopes it will be hammer that improves the department and the lives of police officers and Baltimoreans. The report brings up problems I’ve spent over a decade bitching about. So good. Cops don’t want to work in a dysfunctional police department. Maybe this will change that. (One can dream…)

    And I hate zero-tolerance policing. But today’s politicians are trying to pass the buck to the past for present failures. Stop blaming “the early 2000’s” for what is going on today. And those horrible O’Malley days when I was a cop? Crime and homicide were lower; and there were no riots. That should count for something.

    Too many of the examples of bad policing are A) good policing or B) completely misinterpreted/misunderstand on a situational and legal basis. And it bothers me because this isn’t an undergraduate paper I can correct. It’s the friggin Department of Justice! Of course some anecdotes are examples of bad policing. But take that that damn dragging a seven-year-old kid off his bike incident from 2007. That was an example of bad parenting (and bad reporting), not bad policing. If that’s used against police, I don’t know which anecdotes I can believe. Too many Terry Stops do become illegal searches. I know that. And too many cops are rude to people. I know that, too. Preach on and spread The Word. But is every damn complaint lodged against police God’s unalterable truth? Get real.

    I’ll write more later, but for now I’m going to cut and paste (with permission) from my good friend Leon Taylor. He grew up in the Eastern. We were exchanging emails last night as we were both reading the report until I finished and went to bed under the glow of rosy-fingered dawn.

    Police are a crime fighting entity, not a cost effective social outreach unit. Teach every officer that they police communities. Stop hiring white police who feel they’re some sort of heroes, and whose friends laud them for working in a “war zone.” Stop hiring Black Police who don’t understand that they’ll be disciplined more harshly than White Police.

    Will somebody please own up to the fact that the same politicians who criticize Police are responsible for bettering the communities that Police serve?

    The report only pays lip service to the real problem of socioeconomic disparity. People think of “The Police” as a faceless, soulless entity, when in fact, the “Police” experience more of the human condition than most scholars and politicians. You say “Stop Police Trauma”; I say “Stop Traumatizing Police.”

    Police everywhere are a direct reflection of the communities they serve. It’s extremely difficult to have a functional police department in a dysfunctional community. We need to stop using police as a societal band aid to cover wounds that require complex surgical procedures and intense rehabilitation. There’s no use touting police reform as the panacea to all of our social ills if that ends political reform. Political reform will have a lasting positive effect on the communities most at risk in this country.

    Fuck community policing. It’s just for show.

    And this:

    I know we try so hard to be cavalier about it, but the truth is we’re not staying up all night reading this document because we don’t care. Quite the contrary. We do. You can’t police Baltimore the right way and come away from it unchanged. You can’t forget what you’ve seen. I could sleep better if I could. And I can’t imagine how those charged to improve the quality of life for Baltimoreans can sleep at all.

    One one think “healing the city” would be a simple enough task, given the mayor appoints both the Police Commissioner and the Director of Public Safety. I mean, they do report directly to the Mayor’s office.

    Maybe the real issue here isn’t to investigate the police in Baltimore, but to investigate the other social services services in the affected neighborhoods. If they’re not up to par or non-existent, there’s no way the police service can be up to standard. The level of dysfunction in the community is simply too overwhelming.

    I’m reminded of former PC Batts, knocking on doors to talk to residents in high crime neighborhoods, never understanding, as any BPD rookie knows, that that’s a good way to get someone killed. I’m reminded of Mayor Rawlings-Blakes’ “those who wish to destroy” comment which precipitated the riots last year. Both are examples of presumably well meaning but woefully uninformed assessments of the realities of life in some Baltimore neighborhoods.

    Ferguson and Baltimore are two completely different situations, but both play extremely well to the masses. You can’t police Baltimore like Beverly Hills. Ideally, you should be able to — that should be the goal — but I’m too much of a realist to suggest it’s even remotely possible. I’m all for making things better, call it police reform, if you will.

    But we also need political reform. We need a societal overhaul to even begin to address the issues that drive violent crime in places like Baltimore. Where else in the U.S. (or the world) would anything less than 300 homicides a year for a population of 620,000 be cause for celebration?

  • Prequel to the DOJ BPD report

    Dan Rodricks in the Sun:

    Anticipating the Department of Justice’s release of its civil rights investigation, Davis clearly staked out a position as the man who is trying to fix the department’s broken relationship with large sectors of the community it serves.

    Getting ahead of police reform is no easy task, but it’s much easier than getting ahead of all the shooting.

    When Mosby dropped all remaining charges in the arrest and death of Freddie Gray, she stood on a street in West Baltimore and angrily accused certain police officers of sabotaging the state’s case. She went further than that, asserting that police officers have an “inherent bias” when they investigate fellow officers. … The takeaway from her screed was this: You can’t count on cops to investigate cops. “As you can see,” she said, “whether investigating, interrogating, testifying, corroborating or even complying with the state, we’ve all bore witness to an inherent bias that is a direct result of when police police themselves.”

    Turns out, as Mosby spoke, Cagle was going to trial for shooting a burglary suspect who had already been wounded by two fellow officers. Those two officers testified against Cagle for his use of unnecessary force. That this happened shortly after Mosby’s angry declaration was remarkable. Not only did the Cagle jury hear the testimony of two officers, Isiah Smith and Keven Leary, it saw clear evidence — literally, from an interrogation video — of an earnest investigation by the Police Department’s Internal Affairs Division.

    Mosby knows, sooner or later, she’ll be judged by the same standards by which she asked voters to judge Bernstein. While some Baltimoreans will reward her for prosecuting cops, many more, sick of their city being one of the most violent in the country, want to see her get convictions of murderers and rapists. She needs a full partnership with Davis to make that happen.

    I’m on page 90 of DOJ report. I’ll finished it before I go to bed and write something about it tomorrow. It’s late.

  • President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing (1)

    Here are the “recommendations” and “action items” from the Interim Report. (I guess the “action items” are how to go about achieving the “recommendations”? I’m not sure.)

    I’ve removed all the other text and explanations. Just trying to boil this down to its essence. The whole report is here.

    Once I digest this I’ll have a few things to say. Maybe I’ll categorize these into “good ideas that can happen,” “good ideas that won’t happy,” “bad ideas that shouldn’t happen,” and “yeah, sure, whatever.”

    0.1 OVERARCHING RECOMMENDATION: The President should support and provide funding for the creation of a National Crime and Justice Task Force to review and evaluate all components of the criminal justice system for the purpose of making recommendations to the country on comprehensive criminal justice reform.

    0.2 OVERARCHING RECOMMENDATION: The President should promote programs that take a comprehensive and inclusive look at community based initiatives that address the core issues of poverty, education, health, and safety.

    Pillar One: Building Trust & Legitimacy

    Procedurally just behavior is based on four central principles:

    1. Treating people with dignity and respect

    2. Giving individuals ‘voice’ during encounters

    3. Being neutral and transparent in decision making

    4. Conveying trustworthy motives

    1.1 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement culture should embrace a guardian mindset to build public trust and legitimacy. Toward that end, police and sheriffs’ departments should adopt procedural justice as the guiding principle for internal and external policies and practices to guide their interactions with the citizens they serve.

    1.2 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should acknowledge the role of policing in past and present injustice and discrimination and how it is a hurdle to the promotion of community trust.

    1.2.1 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice should develop and disseminate case studies that provide examples where past injustices were publicly acknowledged by law enforcement agencies in a manner to help build community trust.

    1.3 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should establish a culture of transparency and accountability in order to build public trust and legitimacy. This will help ensure decision making is understood and in accord with stated policy.

    1.3.1 ACTION ITEM: To embrace a culture of transparency, law enforcement agencies should make all department policies available for public review and regularly post on the department’s website information about stops, summonses, arrests, reported crime, and other law enforcement data aggregated by demographics.

    1.3.2 ACTION ITEM: When serious incidents occur, including those involving alleged police misconduct, agencies should communicate with citizens and the media swiftly, openly, and neutrally, respecting areas where the law requires confidentiality. p11

    1.4 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should promote legitimacy internally within the organization by applying the principles of procedural justice.

    1.4.1 ACTION ITEM: In order to achieve internal legitimacy, law enforcement agencies should involve employees in the process of developing policies and procedures.

    1.4.2 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agency leadership should examine opportunities to incorporate procedural justice into the internal discipline process, placing additional importance on values adherence rather than adherence to rules. Union leadership should be partners in this process.

    1.5 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should proactively promote public trust by initiating positive nonenforcement activities to engage communities that typically have high rates of investigative and enforcement involvement with government agencies.

    1.5.1 ACTION ITEM: In order to achieve external legitimacy, law enforcement agencies should involve the community in the process of developing and evaluating policies and procedures.

    1.5.2 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should institute residency incentive programs such as Resident Officer Programs.

    1.5.3 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should create opportunities in schools and communities for positive, nonenforcement interactions with police. Agencies should also publicize the beneficial outcomes and images of positive, trust-building partnerships and initiatives.

    1.6 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should consider the potential damage to public trust when implementing crime fighting strategies.

    1.6.1 ACTION ITEM: Research conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of crime fighting strategies should specifically look at the potential for collateral damage of any given strategy on community trust and legitimacy.

    1.7 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should track the level of trust in police by their communities just as they measure changes in crime. Annual community surveys, ideally standardized across jurisdictions and with accepted sampling protocols, can measure how policing in that community affects public trust.

    1.7.1 ACTION ITEM: The Federal Government should develop survey tools and instructions for use of such a model to prevent local departments from incurring the expense and to allow for consistency across jurisdictions.

    1.8 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should strive to create a workforce that contains a broad range of diversity including race, gender, language, life experience, and cultural background to improve understanding and effectiveness in dealing with all communities.

    1.8.1 ACTION ITEM: The Federal Government should create a Law Enforcement Diversity Initiative designed to help communities diversify law enforcement departments to reflect the demographics of the community.

    1.8.2 ACTION ITEM: The department overseeing this initiative should help localities learn best practices for recruitment, training, and outreach to improve the diversity as well as the cultural and linguistic responsiveness of law enforcement agencies.

    1.8.3 ACTION ITEM: Successful law enforcement agencies should be highlighted and celebrated and those with less diversity should be offered technical assistance to facilitate change.

    1.8.4 ACTION ITEM: Discretionary federal funding for law enforcement programs could be influenced by that department’s efforts to improve their diversity and cultural and linguistic responsiveness.

    1.8.5 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should be encouraged to explore more flexible staffing models.

    1.9 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should build relationships based on trust with immigrant communities. This is central to overall public safety.

    1.9.1 ACTION ITEM: Decouple federal immigration enforcement from routine local policing for civil enforcement and nonserious crime.

    1.9.2 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should ensure reasonable and equitable language access for all persons who have encounters with police or who enter the criminal justice system.27

    1.9.3 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice should remove civil immigration information from the FBI’s National Crime Information Center database.

    Pillar Two: Policy & Oversight

    2.1 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should collaborate with community members to develop policies and strategies in communities and neighborhoods disproportionately affected by crime for deploying resources that aim to reduce crime by improving relationships, greater community engagement, and cooperation.

    2.1.1 ACTION ITEM: The Federal Government should incentivize this collaboration through a variety of programs that focus on public health, education, mental health, and other programs not traditionally part of the criminal justice system.

    2.2 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should have comprehensive policies on the use of force that include training, investigations, prosecutions, data collection, and information sharing. These policies must be clear, concise, and openly available for public inspection.

    2.2.1 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agency policies for training on use of force should emphasize de-escalation and alternatives to arrest or summons in situations where appropriate.

    2.2.2 ACTION ITEM: These policies should also mandate external and independent criminal investigations in cases of police use of force resulting in death, officer-involved shootings resulting in injury or death, or in-custody deaths.

    2.2.3 ACTION ITEM: The task force encourages policies that mandate the use of external and independent prosecutors in cases of police use of force resulting in death, officer-involved shootings resulting in injury or death, or in-custody deaths.

    2.2.4 ACTION ITEM: Policies on use of force should also require agencies to collect, maintain, and report data to the Federal Government on all officer-involved shootings, whether fatal or nonfatal, as well as any in-custody death.

    2.2.5 ACTION ITEM: Policies on use of force should clearly state what types of information will be released, when, and in what situation, to maintain transparency.

    2.2.6 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should establish a Serious Incident Review Board comprising sworn staff and community members to review cases involving officer involved shootings and other serious incidents that have the potential to damage community trust or confidence in the agency. The purpose of this board should be to identify any administrative, supervisory, training, tactical, or policy issues that need to be addressed.

    2.3 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies are encouraged to implement nonpunitive peer review of critical incidents separate from criminal and administrative investigations.

    2.4 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies are encouraged to adopt identification procedures that implement scientifically supported practices that eliminate or minimize presenter bias or influence.

    2.5 RECOMMENDATION: All federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies should report and make available to the public census data regarding the composition of their departments including race, gender, age, and other relevant demographic data.

    2.5.1 ACTION ITEM: The Bureau of Justice Statistics should add additional demographic questions to the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey in order to meet the intent of this recommendation.

    2.6 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should be encouraged to collect, maintain, and analyze demographic data on all detentions (stops, frisks, searches, summons, and arrests). This data should be disaggregated by school and non-school contacts.

    2.6.1 ACTION ITEM: The Federal Government could further incentivize universities and other organizations to partner with police departments to collect data and develop knowledge about analysis and benchmarks as well as to develop tools and templates that help departments manage data collection and analysis.

    2.7 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should create policies and procedures for policing mass demonstrations that employ a continuum of managed tactical resources that are designed to minimize the appearance of a military operation and avoid using provocative tactics and equipment that undermine civilian trust.

    2.7.1. ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agency policies should address procedures for implementing a layered response to mass demonstrations that prioritize de-escalation and a guardian mindset.

    2.7.2 ACTION ITEM: The Federal Government should create a mechanism for investigating complaints and issuing sanctions regarding the inappropriate use of equipment and tactics during mass demonstrations.

    2.8 RECOMMENDATION: Some form of civilian oversight of law enforcement is important in order to strengthen trust with the community. Every community should define the appropriate form and structure of civilian oversight to meet the needs of that community.

    2.8.1 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice, through its research arm, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), should expand its research agenda to include civilian oversight.

    2.8.2 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) should provide technical assistance and collect best practices from existing civilian oversight efforts and be prepared to help cities create this structure, potentially with some matching grants and funding.

    2.9 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies and municipalities should refrain from practices requiring officers to issue a predetermined number of tickets, citations, arrests, or summonses, or to initiate investigative contacts with citizens for reasons not directly related to improving public safety, such as generating revenue.

    2.10 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement officers should be required to seek consent before a search and explain that a person has the right to refuse consent when there is no warrant or probable cause. Furthermore, officers should ideally obtain written acknowledgement that they have sought consent to a search in these circumstances.

    2.11 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should establish search and seizure procedures related to LGBTQ and transgender populations and adopt as policy the recommendation from the President’s HIV/AIDS Task Force to cease using the possession of condoms as the sole evidence of vice.

    2.12 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should adopt and enforce policies prohibiting profiling and discrimination based on race, ethnicity, national origin, age, gender, gender identity/expression, sexual orientation, immigration status, disability, housing status, occupation, and/or language fluency.

    2.12.1 ACTION ITEM: The Bureau of Justice Statistics should add questions concerning sexual harassment of and misconduct toward LGBTQ and gender-nonconforming people by law enforcement officers to the Police Public Contact Survey.

    2.12.2 ACTION ITEM: The Centers for Disease Control should add questions concerning sexual harassment of and misconduct toward LGBTQ and gender-nonconforming people by law enforcement officers to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey.

    2.12.3 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice should promote and disseminate guidance to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies on documenting, preventing, and addressing sexual harassment and misconduct by local law enforcement agents, consistent with the recommendations of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.47

    2.13 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Justice, through the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services and Office of Justice Programs, should provide technical assistance and incentive funding to jurisdictions with small police agencies that take steps towards shared services, regional training, and consolidation.

    2.14 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Justice, through the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, should partner with the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training (IADLEST) to expand its National Decertification Index to serve as the National Register of Decertified Officers with the goal of covering all agencies within the United States and its territories.

    Pillar Three: Technology & Social Media

    3.1 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Justice, in consultation with the law enforcement field, should broaden the efforts of the National Institute of Justice to establish national standards for the research and development of new technology. These standards should also address compatibility and interoperability needs both within law enforcement agencies and across agencies and jurisdictions and maintain civil and human rights protections.

    3.1.1 ACTION ITEM: The Federal Government should support the development and delivery of training to help law enforcement agencies learn, acquire, and implement technology tools and tactics that are consistent with the best practices of 21st century policing.

    3.1.2 ACTION ITEM: As part of national standards, the issue of technology’s impact on privacy concerns should be addressed in accordance with protections provided by constitutional law.

    3.1.3 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should deploy smart technology that is designed to prevent the tampering with or manipulating of evidence in violation of policy.

    3.2 RECOMMENDATION: The implementation of appropriate technology by law enforcement agencies should be designed considering local needs and aligned with national standards.

    3.2.1 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should encourage public engagement and collaboration, including the use of community advisory bodies, when developing a policy for the use of a new technology.

    3.2.2 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should include an evaluation or assessment process to gauge the effectiveness of any new technology, soliciting input from all levels of the agency, from line officer to leadership, as well as assessment from members of the community.61

    3.2.3. ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should adopt the use of new technologies that will help them better serve people with special needs or disabilities.

    3.3 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Justice should develop best practices that can be adopted by state legislative bodies to govern the acquisition, use, retention, and dissemination of auditory, visual, and biometric data by law enforcement.

    3.3.1 ACTION ITEM: As part of the process for developing best practices, the U.S. Department of Justice should consult with civil rights and civil liberties organizations, as well as law enforcement research groups and other experts, concerning the constitutional issues that can arise as a result of the use of new technologies.

    3.3.2 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice should create toolkits for the most effective and constitutional use of multiple forms of innovative technology that will provide state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies with a one-stop clearinghouse of information and resources.

    3.3.3. ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should review and consider the Bureau of Justice Assistance’s (BJA) Body Worn Camera Toolkit to assist in implementing BWCs.

    3.4 RECOMMENDATION: Federal, state, local, and tribal legislative bodies should be encouraged to update public record laws.

    3.5 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should adopt model policies and best practices for technology-based community engagement that increases community trust and access.

    3.6 RECOMMENDATION: The Federal Government should support the development of new “less than lethal” technology to help control combative suspects.

    3.6.1 ACTION ITEM: Relevant federal agencies, including the U.S. Departments of Defense and Justice, should expand their efforts to study the development and use of new less than lethal technologies and evaluate their impact on public safety, reducing lethal violence against citizens, Constitutionality, and officer safety.

    3.7 RECOMMENDATION: The Federal Government should make the development and building of segregated radio spectrum and increased bandwidth by FirstNet for exclusive use by local, state, tribal, and federal public safety agencies a top priority.

    Pillar Four: Community Policing & Crime Reduction

    4.1 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should develop and adopt policies and strategies that reinforce the importance of community engagement in managing public safety.

    4.1.1 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should consider adopting preferences for seeking “least harm” resolutions, such as diversion programs or warnings and citations in lieu of arrest for minor infractions.

    4.2 RECOMMENDATION: Community policing should be infused throughout the culture and organizational structure of law enforcement agencies.

    4.2.1 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should evaluate officers on their efforts to engage members of the community and the partnerships they build. Making this part of the performance evaluation process places an increased value on developing partnerships.

    4.2.2 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should evaluate their patrol deployment practices to allow sufficient time for patrol officers to participate in problem solving and community engagement activities.

    4.2.3 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice and other public and private entities should support research into the factors that have led to dramatic successes in crime reduction in some communities through the infusion of non-discriminatory policing and to determine replicable factors that could be used to guide law enforcement agencies in other communities.

    4.3 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should engage in multidisciplinary, community team approaches for planning, implementing, and responding to crisis situations with complex causal factors.

    4.3.1 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice should collaborate with others to develop and disseminate baseline models of this crisis intervention team approach that can be adapted to local contexts.

    4.3.3 ACTION ITEM: Communities should look to involve peer support counselors as part of multidisciplinary teams when appropriate. Persons who have experienced the same trauma can provide both insight to the first responders and immediate support to individuals in crisis.

    4.3.4 ACTION ITEM: Communities should be encouraged to evaluate the efficacy of these crisis intervention team approaches and hold agency leaders accountable for outcomes.

    4.4 RECOMMENDATION: Communities should support a culture and practice of policing that reflects the values of protection and promotion of the dignity of all, especially the most vulnerable.

    4.4.1 ACTION ITEM: Because offensive or harsh language can escalate a minor situation, law enforcement agencies should underscore the importance of language used and adopt policies directing officers to speak to individuals with respect.

    4.4.1 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should develop programs that create opportunities for patrol officers to regularly interact with neighborhood residents, faith leaders, and business leaders.

    4.5 RECOMMENDATION: Community policing emphasizes working with neighborhood residents to co-produce public safety. Law enforcement agencies should work with community residents to identify problems and collaborate on implementing solutions that produce meaningful results for the community.

    4.5.1 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should schedule regular forums and meetings where all community members can interact with police and help influence programs and policy.

    4.5.2 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should engage youth and communities in joint training with law enforcement, citizen academies, ride-alongs, problem solving teams, community action teams, and quality of life teams.

    4.5.3. ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should establish formal community/citizen advisory committees to assist in developing crime prevention strategies and agency policies as well as provide input on policing issues.

    4.5.4 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should adopt community policing strategies that support and work in concert with economic development efforts within communities.

    4.6 RECOMMENDATION: Communities should adopt policies and programs that address the needs of children and youth most at risk for crime or violence and reduce aggressive law enforcement tactics that stigmatize youth and marginalize their participation in schools and communities.

    4.6.1 ACTION ITEM: Education and criminal justice agencies at all levels of government should work together to reform policies and procedures that push children into the juvenile justice system.85

    4.6.2 ACTION ITEM: In order to keep youth in school and to keep them from criminal and violent behavior, law enforcement agencies should work with schools to encourage the creation of alternatives to student suspensions and expulsion through restorative justice, diversion, counseling, and family interventions.

    4.6.3 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should work with schools to encourage the use of alternative strategies that involve youth in decision making, such as restorative justice, youth courts, and peer interventions.

    4.6.4 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should work with schools to adopt an instructional approach to discipline that uses interventions or disciplinary consequences to help students develop new behavior skills and positive strategies to avoid conflict, redirect energy, and refocus on learning.

    4.6.5 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should work with schools to develop and monitor school discipline policies with input and collaboration from school personnel, students, families, and community members. These policies should prohibit the use of corporal punishment and electronic control devices.

    4.6.6 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should work with schools to create a continuum of developmentally appropriate and proportional consequences for addressing ongoing and escalating student misbehavior after all appropriate interventions have been attempted.

    4.6.7 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should work with communities to play a role in programs and procedures to reintegrate juveniles back into their communities as they leave the juvenile justice system.

    4.6.8 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies and schools should establish memoranda of agreement for the placement of School Resource Officers that limit police involvement in student discipline.

    4.6.9 ACTION ITEM: The Federal Government should assess and evaluate zero tolerance strategies and examine the role of reasonable discretion when dealing with adolescents in consideration of their stages of maturation or development.

    4.7 RECOMMENDATION: Communities need to affirm and recognize the voices of youth in community decision making, facilitate youth-led research and problem solving, and develop and fund youth leadership training and life skills through positive youth/police collaboration and interactions.

    4.7.1 ACTION ITEM: Communities and law enforcement agencies should restore and build trust between youth and police by creating programs and projects for positive, consistent, and persistent interaction between youth and police.

    4.7.2 ACTION ITEM: Communities should develop community- and school-based evidence-based programs that mitigate punitive and authoritarian solutions to teen problems.

    Pillar Five: Training & Education

    5.1 RECOMMENDATION: The Federal Government should support the development of partnerships with training facilities across the country to promote consistent standards for high quality training and establish training innovation hubs.

    5.1.1 ACTION ITEM: The training innovation hubs should develop replicable model programs that use adult-based learning and scenario based training in a training environment modeled less like boot camp. Through these programs the hubs would influence nationwide curricula, as well as instructional methodology.

    5.1.2 ACTION ITEM: The training innovation hubs should establish partnerships with academic institutions to develop rigorous training practices, evaluation, and the development of curricula based on evidence-based practices.

    5.1.3 ACTION ITEM: The Department of Justice should build a stronger relationship with the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement (IADLEST) in order to leverage their network with state boards and commissions of Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST).

    5.2 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should engage community members in the training process.

    5.2.1 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice should conduct research to develop and disseminate a toolkit on how law enforcement agencies and training programs can integrate community members into this training process.

    5.3 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should provide leadership training to all personnel throughout their careers.

    5.3.1 ACTION ITEM: Recognizing that strong, capable leadership is required to create cultural transformation, the U.S. Department of Justice should invest in developing learning goals and model curricula/training for each level of leadership.

    5.3.2 ACTION ITEM: The Federal Government should encourage and support partnerships between law enforcement and academic institutions to support a culture that values ongoing education and the integration of current research into the development of training, policies, and practices.

    5.3.3 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice should support and encourage cross-discipline leadership training.

    5.4 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Justice should develop, in partnership with institutions of higher education, a national postgraduate institute of policing for senior executives with a standardized curriculum preparing them to lead agencies in the 21st century.

    5.5 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Justice should instruct the Federal Bureau of Investigation to modify the curriculum of the National Academy at Quantico to include prominent coverage of the topical areas addressed in this report. In addition, the COPS Office and the Office of Justice Programs should work with law enforcement professional organizations to encourage modification of their curricula in a similar fashion.95

    5.6 RECOMMENDATION: POSTs should make Crisis Intervention Training (CIT) a part of both basic recruit and in-service officer training.

    5.6.1 ACTION ITEM: Because of the importance of this issue, Congress should appropriate funds to help support law enforcement crisis intervention training.

    5.7 RECOMMENDATION: POSTs should ensure that basic officer training includes lessons to improve social interaction as well as tactical skills.

    5.8 RECOMMENDATION: POSTs should ensure that basic recruit and in-service officer training include curriculum on the disease of addiction.

    5.9 RECOMMENDATION: POSTs should ensure both basic recruit and in-service training incorporates content around recognizing and confronting implicit bias and cultural responsiveness.

    5.9.1 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should implement ongoing, top down training for all officers in cultural diversity and related topics that can build trust and legitimacy in diverse communities. This should be accomplished with the assistance of advocacy groups that represent the viewpoints of communities that have traditionally had adversarial relationships with law enforcement.

    5.9.2 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should implement training for officers that covers policies for interactions with the LGBTQ population, including issues such as determining gender identity for arrest placement, the Muslim, Arab, and South Asian communities, and immigrant or non-English speaking groups, as well as reinforcing policies for the prevention of sexual misconduct and harassment.

    5.10 RECOMMENDATION: POSTs should require both basic recruit and in-service training on policing in a democratic society.

    5.11 RECOMMENDATION: The Federal Government, as well as state and local agencies, should encourage and incentivize higher education for law enforcement officers.

    5.11.1 ACTION ITEM: The Federal Government should create a loan repayment and forgiveness incentive program specifically for policing.

    5.12 RECOMMENDATION: The Federal Government should support research into the development of technology that enhances scenario based training, social interaction skills, and enables the dissemination of interactive distance learning for law enforcement.

    5.13 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Justice should support the development and implementation of improved Field Training Officer programs.

    5.13.1 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice should support the development of broad Field Training Program standards and training strategies that address changing police culture and organizational procedural justice issues that agencies can adopt and customize to local needs.

    5.13.2 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice should provide funding to incentivize agencies to update their Field Training Programs in accordance with the new standards.

    Pillar Six: Officer Wellness & Safety

    6.1 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Justice should enhance and further promote its multi-faceted officer safety and wellness initiative.

    6.1.1 ACTION ITEM: Congress should establish and fund a national “Blue Alert” warning system.

    6.1.2 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice, in partnership with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, should establish a task force to study mental health issues unique to officers and recommend tailored treatments.

    6.1.3 ACTION ITEM: The Federal Government should support the continuing research into the efficacy of an annual mental health check for officers, as well as fitness, resilience, and nutrition.

    6.1.4. ACTION ITEM: Pension plans should recognize fitness for duty examinations as definitive evidence of valid duty or non-duty related disability.

    6.1.5 ACTION ITEM: Public Safety Officer Benefits (PSOB) should be provided to survivors of officers killed while working, regardless of whether the officer used safety equipment (seatbelt or anti-ballistic vest) or if officer death was the result of suicide attributed to a current diagnosis of duty-related mental illness, including but not limited to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

    6.2 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should promote safety and wellness at every level of the organization.

    6.2.1 ACTION ITEM: Though the Federal Government can support many of the programs and best practices identified by the U.S. Department of Justice initiative described in recommendation 6.1, the ultimate responsibility lies with each agency.

    6.3 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Justice should encourage and assist departments in the implementation of scientifically supported shift lengths by law enforcement.

    6.3.1 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice should fund additional research into the efficacy of limiting the total number of hours an officer should work within a 24–48 hour period, including special findings on the maximum number of hours an officer should work in a high risk or high stress environment (e.g., public demonstrations or emergency situations).

    6.4 RECOMMENDATION: Every law enforcement officer should be provided with individual tactical first aid kits and training as well as anti-ballistic vests.

    6.4.1 ACTION ITEM: Congress should authorize funding for the distribution of law enforcement individual tactical first-aid kits.

    6.4.2 ACTION ITEM: Congress should reauthorize and expand the Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) program.

    6.5 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Justice should expand efforts to collect and analyze data not only on officer deaths but also on injuries and “near misses.”

    6.6 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should adopt policies that require officers to wear seat belts and bullet-proof vests and provide training to raise awareness of the consequences of failure to do so.

    6.7 RECOMMENDATION: Congress should develop and enact peer review error management legislation.

    6.8 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Transportation should provide technical assistance opportunities for departments to explore the use of vehicles equipped with vehicle collision prevention “smart car” technology that will reduce the number of accidents.

    Implementation

    7.1 RECOMMENDATION: The President should direct all federal law enforcement agencies to review the recommendations made by the Task Force on 21st Century Policing and, to the extent practicable, to adopt those that can be implemented at the federal level.

    7.2 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Justice should explore public-private partnership opportunities, starting by convening a meeting with local, regional, and national foundations to discuss the proposals for reform described in this report and seeking their engagement and support in advancing implementation of these recommendations.

    7.3 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Justice should charge its Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) with assisting the law enforcement field in addressing current and future challenges.