The United States Department of Justice Department of Justice Seal The United States Department of Justice
Search The Site
 

LA Consent Decree -- Section III

III. INCIDENTS, PROCEDURES, DOCUMENTATION, INVESTIGATION, AND REVIEW

A. Use of Force

55. Within six months of the effective date of this Agreement, all Categorical Use of Force administrative investigations, including those formerly conducted by the Robbery Homicide Division ("RHD") or the Detectives Headquarters Division ("DHD"), shall be conducted by a unit assigned to the Operations Headquarters Bureau ("OHB"), which unit (the "OHB Unit") shall report directly to the commanding officer of OHB.

a. Investigators in this unit shall be detectives, sergeants, or other officers with supervisory rank.

b. In the organizational structure of the LAPD, the commanding officer of OHB shall not have direct line supervision for the LAPD's geographic bureaus; provided, however, that such commanding officer may continue to serve on the Operations Committee (or any successor thereto), issue orders applicable to the LAPD (including the geographic bureaus), assume staff responsibilities, as defined in the LAPD manual, and undertake special assignments as determined by the Chief of Police.

c. Investigators in this unit shall be trained in conducting administrative investigations as specified in paragraph 80.

56. The OHB Unit shall have the capability to "roll out" to all Categorical Use of Force incidents 24 hours a day. The Department shall require immediate notification to the Chief of Police, the OHB Unit, the Commission and the Inspector General by the LAPD whenever there is a Categorical Use of Force. Upon receiving each such notification, an OHB Unit investigator shall promptly respond to the scene of each Categorical Use of Force and commence his or her investigation. The senior OHB Unit manager present shall have overall command of the crime scene and investigation at the scene where multiple units are present to investigate a Categorical Use of Force incident; provided, however, that this shall not prevent the Chief of Police, the Chief of Staff, the Department Commander or the Chief's Duty Officer from assuming command from a junior OHB supervisor or manager when there is a specific need to do so.

57. In addition to administrative investigations and where the facts so warrant, the LAPD shall also conduct a separate criminal investigation of Categorical Uses of Force. The criminal investigation shall not be conducted by the OHB Unit.

58. The LAPD shall continue its policy of notifying the County of Los Angeles District Attorney's Office whenever an LAPD officer, on or off-duty, shoots and injures any person during the scope and course of employment. In addition, the LAPD shall notify the District Attorney's Office whenever an individual dies while in the custody or control of an LAPD officer or the LAPD, and a use of force by a peace officer may be a proximate cause of the death.

59. The LAPD shall continue to provide cooperation to the District Attorney's Office personnel who arrive on the scene of the incident.

60. The Department shall renew its request to the appropriate bargaining unit(s) for a provision in its collective bargaining agreements that when more than one officer fires his or her weapon in a single OIS incident, then each officer should be represented by a different attorney during the investigation and subsequent proceedings. The foregoing acknowledges that each officer retains the right to be represented by an attorney of his or her choice.

61. All involved officers and witness officers shall be separated immediately after an OIS, and shall remain separated until all such officers have given statements or, in the case of involved officers, declined to give a statement; provided, however, that nothing in this Agreement prevents the Department from compelling a statement or requires the Department to compel a statement in the event that the officer has declined to give a statement. In such a case, all officers shall remain separated until such compelled statement has been given.

62. Managers shall analyze the circumstances surrounding the presence or absence of a supervisor at (a) a Categorical Use of Force incident, and (b) the service of a search warrant. In each case, such analysis shall occur within one week of the occurrence of the incident or service to determine if the supervisor's response to the incident or service was appropriate. Such supervisory conduct shall be taken into account in each supervisor's annual personnel performance evaluation.

63. The Department shall continue its practice of referring all officers involved in a Categorical Use of Force resulting in death or the substantial possibility of death (whether on or off duty) to BSS for a psychological evaluation by a licensed mental health professional. The matters discussed in such evaluation shall be strictly confidential and shall not be communicated to other LAPD officers without the consent of the officer evaluated. No such officer shall return to field duty until his or her manager determines that the officer should be returned to field duty upon consultation with BSS.

64. Except as limited or prohibited by applicable state law, when a manager reviews and makes recommendations regarding discipline or non-disciplinary action as a result of a Categorical Use of Force, the manager will consider the officer's work history, including information contained in the TEAMS II system, and that officer's Categorical Use of Force history, including a review of the tactics the officer has used in past uses of force.

65. The Department shall continue to require officers to report to the LAPD without delay the officer's own use of force (on the use of force form as revised pursuant to paragraph 66).

66. The LAPD shall modify its current use of force report form to include data fields that require officers to identify with specificity the type of force used for the physical force category, to record the body area impacted by such physical use of force, to identify fractures and dislocations as a type of injury, and to include bean bag shot gun as a type of force category.

67. The Commission shall continue its practice of reviewing all Categorical Uses of Force including all the reports prepared by the Chief of Police regarding such incidents and related investigation files. These reports shall be provided to the Police Commission at least 60 days before the running of any statute of limitations that would restrict the imposition of discipline related to such Categorical Use of Force. Provided, however, if the investigation file has not been completed by this time, the LAPD shall provide the Commission with a copy of the underlying file, including all evidence gathered, with a status report of the investigation that includes an explanation of why the investigation has not been completed, a description of the investigative steps still to be completed, and a schedule for the completion of the investigation. The Commission shall review whether any administrative investigation was unduly delayed due to a related criminal investigation, and, if so, shall assess the reasons therefor.

68. The LAPD shall continue to require that all uses of force that are not Categorical Uses of Force ("Non-Categorical Uses of Force") be reported to a supervisor who shall conduct a timely supervisory investigation of the incident, as required under LAPD policy and paragraphs 69 and 81, including collecting and analyzing relevant documents and witness interviews, and completing a use of force report form.

69. The Department shall continue to have the Use of Force Review Board review all Categorical Uses of Force. The LAPD shall continue to have Non-Categorical Uses of Force reviewed by chain-of-command managers at the Division and Bureau level. Non-Categorical Use of Force investigations shall be reviewed by Division management within 14 days of the incident, unless a member of the chain-of-command reviewing the investigation detects a deficiency in the investigation, in which case the review shall be completed within a period of time reasonably necessary to correct such deficiency in the investigation or reports.

B. Search and Arrest Procedures

70. The Department shall continue to require all booking recommendations be personally reviewed and approved by a watch commander as to appropriateness, legality, and conformance with Department policies. Additionally, the watch commander or designee will personally review and approve supporting arrest reports as to appropriateness, legality and conformance with Department polices in light of the booking recommendation.

a. Such reviews shall continue to entail a review for completeness of the information that is contained on the applicable forms and an authenticity review to include examining the form for "canned" language, inconsistent information, lack of articulation of the legal basis for the action or other indicia that the information on the forms is not authentic or correct.

b. Supervisors shall evaluate each incident in which a person is charged with interfering with a police officer (California Penal Code  148), resisting arrest, or assault on an officer to determine whether it raises any issue or concern regarding training, policy, or tactics.

c. The quality of these supervisory reviews shall be taken into account in the supervisor's annual personnel performance evaluations.

71. The LAPD shall continue to implement procedures with respect to search warrants and probable cause arrest warrants as defined in the LAPD manual (commonly known as "Ramey" warrants), which require, among other things, that a supervisor shall review each request for a warrant and each affidavit filed by a police officer to support the warrant application. Such review shall include:

a. a review for completeness of the information contained therein and an authenticity review to include an examination for "canned" language, inconsistent information, and lack of articulation of the legal basis for the warrant; and

b. a review of the information on the application and affidavit, where applicable, to determine whether the warrant is appropriate, legal and in conformance with LAPD procedure.

c. In addition, a supervisor shall review the officer's plan for executing the search warrant and, after execution of the search warrant, review the execution of the search warrant. A supervisor shall be present for execution of the search warrant.

72. Each Area and specialized Division of the LAPD shall maintain a log listing each search warrant, the case file where a copy of such warrant is maintained, and the officer who applied for and each supervisor who reviewed the application for such warrant.

73. All detainees and arrestees brought to an LAPD facility shall be brought before a watch commander for inspection. The watch commander shall visually inspect each such detainee or arrestee for injuries as required by LAPD procedures and, at a minimum, ask the detainee or arrestee the questions required by current LAPD procedures, which are: 1) "Do you understand why you were detained/arrested?"; 2) "Are you sick, ill, or injured?"; 3) "Do you have any questions or concerns?". In the rare cases where circumstances preclude such an inspection and interview by a watch commander, the LAPD shall ensure that the person is inspected and interviewed by a supervisor who did not assist or participate in the person's arrest or detention. In each instance, the watch commander or supervisor, as appropriate, shall sign the related booking documentation, which shall indicate their compliance with these procedures.

C. Initiation of Complaints

74. The Department shall continue to provide for the receipt of complaints as follows:

a. in writing or verbally, in person, by mail, by telephone (or TDD), facsimile transmission, or by electronic mail;

b. anonymous complaints;

c. at LAPD headquarters, any LAPD station or substation, or the offices of the Police Commission or the Inspector General;

d. distribution of complaint materials and self-addressed postage-paid envelopes in easily accessible City locations throughout Los Angeles and in languages utilized by the City of Los Angeles in municipal election ballot materials;

e. distribution of the materials needed to file a complaint upon request to community groups, community centers, and public and private service centers;

f. the assignment of a case number to each complaint; and

g. continuation of a 24-hour toll-free telephone complaint hotline. Within six months of the effective date of this Agreement, the Department shall record all calls made on this hotline.

h. In addition, the Department shall prohibit officers from asking or requiring a potential complainant to sign any form that in any manner limits or waives the ability of a civilian to file a police complaint with the LAPD or any other entity. The Department shall also prohibit officers, as a condition for filing a misconduct complaint, from asking or requiring a potential complainant to sign a form that limits or waives the ability of a civilian to file a lawsuit in court.

75. The LAPD shall initiate a Complaint Form 1.28 investigation against (i) any officer who allegedly fails to inform any civilian who indicates a desire to file a complaint of the means by which a complaint may be filed; (ii) any officer who allegedly attempts to dissuade a civilian from filing a complaint; or (iii) any officer who is authorized to accept a complaint who allegedly refuses to do so.

76. The City shall cause the LAPD to be notified whenever a person serves a civil lawsuit on or files a claim against the City alleging misconduct by an LAPD officer or other employee of the LAPD.

77. The Department shall continue to require all officers to notify without delay the LAPD whenever the officer is arrested or criminally charged for any conduct, or the officer is named as a party in any civil suit involving his or her conduct while on duty (or otherwise while acting in an official capacity). In addition, the Department shall require such notification from any officer who is named as a defendant in any civil suit that results in a temporary, preliminary, or final adjudication on the merits in favor of a plaintiff complaining of off-duty physical violence, threats of physical violence, or domestic violence by the officer.

78. The Department shall continue to require officers to report to the LAPD without delay: any conduct by other officers that reasonably appears to constitute (a) an excessive use of force or improper threat of force; (b) a false arrest or filing of false charges; (c) an unlawful search or seizure; (d) invidious discrimination; (e) an intentional failure to complete forms required by LAPD policies and in accordance with procedures; (f) an act of retaliation for complying with any LAPD policy or procedure; or (g) an intentional provision of false information in an administrative investigation or in any official report, log, or electronic transmittal of information. Officers shall report such alleged misconduct by fellow officers either directly to IAG or to a supervisor who shall complete a Complaint Form 1.28. This requirement applies to all officers, including supervisors and managers who learn of evidence of possible misconduct through their review of an officer's work. Failure to voluntarily report as described in this paragraph shall be an offense subject to discipline if sustained.

D. Conduct of Investigations

79. Within 10 days of their receipt by the LAPD, the IAG shall receive and promptly review the "face sheet" of all complaints to determine whether they meet the criteria in paragraphs 93, 94 and 95 for being investigated by IAG, or the OHB Unit, or chain of command supervisors.

80. In conducting all Categorical Use of Force investigations, and complaint investigations regarding the categories of misconduct allegations and matters identified in paragraphs 93 and 94 (whether conducted by IAG, the OHB Unit, or by chain of command during the transition period specified in paragraph 95), the LAPD shall, subject to and in conformance with applicable state law:

a. tape record or videotape interviews of complainants, involved officers, and witnesses;

b. whenever practicable and appropriate, and not inconsistent with good investigatory practices such as canvassing a scene, interview complainants and witnesses at sites and times convenient for them, including at their residences or places of business;

c. prohibit group interviews;

d. notify involved officers and the supervisors of involved officers, except when LAPD deems the complaint to be confidential under the law;

e. interview all supervisors with respect to their conduct at the scene during the incident;

f. collect and preserve all appropriate evidence, including canvassing the scene to locate witnesses where appropriate, with the burden for such collection on the LAPD, not the complainant; and

g. identify and report in writing all inconsistencies in officer and witness interview statements gathered during the investigation.

81. Chain of command investigations of complaints (other than those covered by paragraph 80), and Non-Categorical Uses of Force shall comply with subsections c, e, and f, of paragraph 80 where applicable.

82. If during the course of any investigation of a Categorical Use of Force, Non-Categorical Use of Force, or complaint, the investigating officer has reason to believe that misconduct may have occurred other than that alleged by the complainant, the alleged victim of misconduct, or the triggering item or report, the investigating officer must notify a supervisor, and an additional Complaint Form 1.28 investigation of the additional misconduct issue shall be conducted.

83. Subject to restrictions on use of information contained in applicable state law, the OHB Unit investigating Categorical Uses of Force as described in paragraph 55 and 93 and IAG investigators conducting investigations as described in paragraphs 93 and 94, shall have access to all information contained in TEAMS II, where such information is relevant and appropriate to such investigations, including training records, Complaint Form 1.28 investigations, and discipline histories, and performance evaluations.

E. Adjudicating Investigations

84. The Department shall continue to employ the following standards when it makes credibility determinations: use of standard California Jury Instructions to evaluate credibility; consideration of the accused officer's history of complaint investigations and disciplinary records concerning that officer, where relevant and appropriate; and consideration of the civilian's criminal history, where appropriate. There shall be no automatic preference of an officer's statement over the statement of any other witness including a complainant who is also a witness. There shall be no automatic judgment that there is insufficient information to make a credibility determination when the only or principal information about an incident is contained in conflicting statements made by the involved officer and the complainant. Absent other indicators of bias or untruthfulness, mere familial or social relationship with a victim or officer shall not render a witness' statement as biased or untruthful; however, the fact of such relationship may be noted.

85. The LAPD shall adjudicate all complaints using a preponderance of the evidence standard. Wherever supported by evidence collected in the investigation, complaints shall be adjudicated as "sustained," "sustained-no penalty," "not resolved," "unfounded," "exonerated," "duplicate," or "no Department employee." In no case may a Complaint Form 1.28 investigation be closed without a final adjudication.

86. Withdrawal of a complaint, unavailability of a complainant to make a statement, or the fact that the complaint was filed anonymously or by a person other than the victim of the misconduct, shall not be a basis for adjudicating a complaint without further attempt at investigation. The LAPD shall use reasonable efforts to investigate such complaints to determine whether the complaint can be corroborated.

87. All investigations of complaints shall be completed in a timely manner, taking into account: (a) the investigation's complexity; (b) the availability of evidence; and (c) overriding or extenuating circumstances underlying exceptions or tolling doctrines that may be applied to the disciplinary limitations provisions (i) applicable to LAPD officers and (ii) applicable to many other law enforcement agencies in the State of California. The parties expect that, even after taking these circumstances into account, most investigations will be completed within five months.

F. Discipline & Non-Disciplinary Action

88. The Chief of Police, no later than 45 calendar days following the end of each calendar quarter, shall report to the Commission, with a copy to the Inspector General, on the imposition of discipline during such quarter (the "Discipline Report"). The Chief of Police shall provide the first such report to the Police Commission by February 15, 2001, and such report shall provide the information listed below for the period from the effective date of this Agreement until December 31, 2000; thereafter such report will be provided on a calendar quarter basis. Such report shall contain: (a) a summary of all discipline imposed during the quarter reported by type of misconduct, broken down by type of discipline, bureau, and rank; (b) a summary comparison between discipline imposed and determinations made by the Boards of Rights during the quarter; (c) a written explanation of each reduction in penalty from that prescribed by the Board of Rights; (d) a description of all discipline and non-disciplinary actions for each Categorical Use of Force the Commission has determined was out of policy; and (e) a written explanation, following the Chief of Police's final determination regarding the imposition of discipline, when discipline has not been imposed (other than exoneration by the Board of Rights) and the following has occurred: the officer has entered a guilty plea or has been found guilty in a criminal case; the officer had a Complaint Form 1.28 investigation, in the categories identified in paragraphs 93 and 94 (whether conducted by the OHB Unit, IAG, or by chain of command during the transition period specified in paragraph 95) sustained; or the officer has been found civilly liable by a judge or jury of conduct committed on duty or while acting in his or her official capacity; or the officer's conduct has been the basis for the City being found civilly liable by a judge or jury. Each quarterly Discipline Report shall include as attachments copies of the monthly Internal Affairs Group Reports on Administration of Internal Discipline for that quarter, which, during the term of this Agreement, shall continue to contain at least the level of detail included in the August 1999 report.

89. The Inspector General shall review, analyze and report to the Commission on each Discipline Report, including the circumstances under which discipline was imposed and the severity of any discipline imposed. The Commission, no later than 45 days after receipt of the Discipline Report, following consultation with the Chief of Police, shall review the Discipline Report and document the Commission's assessment of the appropriateness of the actions of the Chief of Police described in the Discipline Report. With respect to Categorical Uses of Force, such assessment and documentation shall be made for each officer whose conduct was determined to be out of policy by the Commission. Such assessment and documentation shall be considered as part of the Chief's annual evaluation as provided in paragraph 144.

90. The LAPD shall continue its practice of having managers evaluate all Complaint Form 1.28 investigations to identify underlying problems and training needs. After such evaluations the manager shall implement appropriate non-disciplinary actions or make a recommendation to the proper LAPD entity to implement such actions.

91. After a complaint is resolved by the LAPD, the LAPD shall inform the complainant of the resolution, in writing, including the investigation's significant dates, general allegations, and disposition.

92. The City and the Department shall prohibit retaliation in any form against any employee for reporting possible misconduct by any other employee of the LAPD. Within six months of the effective date of this Agreement and annually thereafter, the Police Commission shall review the Department's anti-retaliation policy and its implementation and make modifications as appropriate to protect officers from reprisals for reporting misconduct. The Commission's review of such policy and its implementation shall consider the discipline imposed for retaliation and supervisors' performance in addressing and preventing retaliation.

G. Internal Affairs Group

93. The City shall reallocate responsibility for complaint investigations between IAG and chain-of-command supervisors. Under this reallocation, IAG, and not chain-of-command supervisors, shall investigate (a) all civil suits or claims for damages involving on duty conduct by LAPD officers or civil suits and claims involving off-duty conduct required to be reported under paragraph 77; and (b) all complaints which allege:

(i) unauthorized uses of force, other than administrative Categorical Use of Force investigations (which shall be investigated by the OHB Unit as part of its investigation of such Categorical Uses of Force);

(ii) invidious discrimination (e.g., on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or disability), including improper ethnic remarks and gender bias;

(iii) unlawful search;

(iv) unlawful seizure (including false imprisonment and false arrest);

(v) dishonesty;

(vi) domestic violence;

(vii) improper behavior involving narcotics or drugs;

(viii) sexual misconduct;

(ix) theft; and

(x) any act of retaliation or retribution against an officer or civilian.

94. In addition to the categories of complaint allegations set forth in paragraph 93, IAG, and not chain of command supervisors, shall investigate the following:

a. all incidents in which both (i) a civilian is charged by an officer with interfering with a police officer (California Penal Code  148), resisting arrest, or disorderly conduct, and (ii) the prosecutor's office notifies the Department either that it is dismissing the charge based upon officer credibility or a judge dismissed the charge based upon officer credibility;

b. all incidents in which the Department has received written notification from a prosecuting agency in a criminal case that there has been an order suppressing evidence because of any constitutional violation involving potential misconduct by an LAPD officer, any other judicial finding of officer misconduct made in the course of a judicial proceeding or any request by a federal or state judge or magistrate that a misconduct investigation be initiated pursuant to some information developed during a judicial proceeding before a judge or magistrate. The LAPD shall request that all prosecuting agencies provide them with written notification whenever the prosecuting agency has determined that any of the above has occurred;

c. all incidents in which an officer is arrested or charged with a crime other than low grade misdemeanors, as defined in the LAPD manual, which misdemeanors shall be investigated by chain-of-command supervisors; and

d. any request by a judge or prosecutor that a misconduct investigation be initiated pursuant to information developed during the course of an official proceeding in which such judge or prosecutor has been involved.

95. The City shall in fiscal year 2001-2002 provide all necessary position authorities to fully implement paragraphs 93 and 94. Investigation responsibilities shall be transitioned as positions are filled. Prior to positions being filled, investigation responsibilities shall be transitioned commensurate with available resources. Positions will be filled and investigation responsibility transition shall be completed by December 31, 2002. For complaints filed on or after July 1, 2001, the Department shall make a first priority of allocating to IAG complaints in the categories specified in paragraphs 93 and 94 against officers assigned to special units covered by paragraph 106. The LAPD shall make a second priority of allocating to IAG complaints alleging unauthorized uses of force (other than administrative Categorical Uses of Force). These complaint investigations will be allocated to IAG so as to allow the City to meet its obligations under paragraph 87 of this Agreement.

96. Paragraphs 93 and 94 shall not apply to misconduct complaints lodged against the Chief of Police, which investigations shall be directed by the Commission as set forth in paragraph 145. Paragraphs 93 and 94 do not preclude IAG from undertaking such other investigations as the Department may determine.

97. By July 1, 2001, the City shall develop and initiate a plan for organizing and executing regular, targeted, and random integrity audit checks, or "sting" operations (hereinafter "sting audits"), to identify and investigate officers engaging in at-risk behavior, including: unlawful stops, searches, seizures (including false arrests), uses of excessive force, or violations of LAPD's Manual Section 4/264.50 (or its successor). These operations shall also seek to identify officers who discourage the filing of a complaint or fail to report misconduct or complaints. IAG shall be the unit within the LAPD responsible for these operations. The Department shall use the relevant TEAMS II data, and other relevant information, in selecting targets for these sting audits. Sting audits shall be conducted for each subsequent fiscal year for the duration of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to limit the application of any federal statute.

98. The commanding officer of IAG shall select the staff who are hired and retained as IAG investigators and supervisors, subject to the applicable provisions of the City's civil service rules and regulations and collective bargaining agreements. Investigative experience shall be a desirable, but not a required, criterion for an IAG investigatory position. Officers who have a history of any sustained investigation or discipline received for the use of excessive force, a false arrest or charge, or an improper search or seizure, sexual harassment, discrimination or dishonesty shall be disqualified from IAG positions unless the IAG commanding officer justifies in writing the hiring of such officer despite such a history.

99. The Department shall establish a term of duty of up to three years for the IAG Sergeants, Detectives and Lieutenants who conduct investigations, and may reappoint an officer to a new term of duty only if that officer has performed in a competent manner. Such IAG investigators may be removed during their term of duty for acts or behaviors that would disqualify the officer from selection to IAG or under any other personnel authority available to the Department.

100. IAG investigators shall be evaluated based on their competency in following the policies and procedures for Complaint Form 1.28 investigations. The LAPD shall provide regular and periodic re-training and re-evaluations on topics relevant to their duties.

101. The LAPD shall refer to the appropriate criminal prosecutorial authorities all incidents involving LAPD officers with facts indicating criminal conduct.

H. Non-Discrimination Policy and Motor Vehicle and Pedestrian Stops

102. The Department shall continue to prohibit discriminatory conduct on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability in the conduct of law enforcement activities. The Department shall continue to require that, to the extent required by federal and state law, all stops and detentions, and activities following stops or detentions, by the LAPD shall be made on the basis of legitimate, articulable reasons consistent with the standards of reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

103. LAPD officers may not use race, color, ethnicity, or national origin (to any extent or degree) in conducting stops or detentions, or activities following stops or detentions, except when engaging in appropriate suspect-specific activity to identify a particular person or group. When LAPD officers are seeking one or more specific persons who have been identified or described in part by their race, color, ethnicity, or national origin, they may rely in part on race, color, ethnicity, or national origin only in combination with other appropriate identifying factors and may not give race, color, ethnicity or national origin undue weight.

104. By November 1, 2001, the Department shall require LAPD officers to complete a written or electronic report each time an officer conducts a motor vehicle stop.

a. The report shall include the following:

(i) the officer's serial number;

(ii) date and approximate time of the stop;

(iii) reporting district where the stop occurred;

(iv) driver's apparent race, ethnicity, or national origin;

(v) driver's gender and apparent age;

(vi) reason for the stop, to include check boxes for: (1) suspected moving violation of the vehicle code; (2) suspected violation of the Penal or Health and Safety Codes; (3) suspected violation of a City ordinance; (4) Departmental briefing (including crime broadcast/crime bulletin/roll call briefing); (5) suspected equipment/registration violation; (6) call for service; and (7) other (with a brief text field);

(vii) whether the driver was required to exit the vehicle;

(viii) whether a pat-down/frisk was conducted;

(ix) action taken, to include check boxes for warning, citation, arrest, completion of a field interview card, with appropriate identification number for the citation or arrest report; and

(x) whether the driver was asked to submit to a consensual search of person, vehicle, or belongings, and whether permission was granted or denied.

b. Information described in (iv), (v), (viii), (ix) and (x) of the preceding subparagraph shall be collected for each passenger required to exit the vehicle.

c. If a warrantless search is conducted, the report shall include check boxes for the following:

(i) search authority, to include: (1) consent; (2) incident to an arrest; (3) parole/probation; (4) visible contraband; (5) odor of contraband; (6) incident to a pat-down/frisk; (7) impound inventory; and (8) other (with a brief text field);

(ii) what was searched, to include: (1) vehicle; (2) person; and (3) container; and

(iii) what was discovered/seized, to include: (1) weapons; (2) drugs; (3) alcohol; (4) money; (5) other contraband; (6) other evidence of a crime; and (7) nothing.

105. By November 1, 2001, the Department shall require LAPD officers to complete a written or electronic report each time an officer conducts a pedestrian stop.

a. The report shall include the following:

(i) the officer's serial number;

(ii) date and approximate time of the stop;

(iii) reporting district where the stop occurred;

(iv) person's apparent race, ethnicity, or national origin;

(v) person's gender and apparent age;

(vi) reason for the stop, to include check boxes for: (1) suspected violation of the Penal Code; (2) suspected violation of the Health and Safety Code; (3) suspected violation of the Municipal Code; (4) suspected violation of the Vehicle Code; (5) Departmental briefing (including crime broadcast/crime bulletin/roll call briefing); (6) suspect flight; (7) consensual (which need only be checked if there is a citation, arrest, completion of a field interview card, search or seizure (other than searches or seizures incident to arrest) or pat-down/frisk); (8) call for service; or (9) other (with brief text field);

(vii) whether a pat-down/frisk was conducted;

(viii) action taken, to include check boxes for (1) warning; (2) citation; (3) arrest; and (4) completion of a field interview card, with appropriate identification number for the citation or arrest report; and

(ix) whether the person was asked to submit to a consensual search of their person or belongings, and whether permission was granted or denied.

b. If a warrantless search is conducted, the report shall include check boxes for the following:

(i) search authority, to include: (1) consent; (2) incident to an arrest; (3) parole/probation; (4) visible contraband; (5) odor of contraband; (6) incident to a pat-down/frisk; and (7) other (with a brief text field);

(ii) what was searched, to include: (1) vehicle; (2) person; and (3) container; and

(iii) what was discovered/seized, to include: (1) weapons; (2) drugs; (3) alcohol; (4) money; (5) other contraband; (6) other evidence of a crime; and (7) nothing.

c. In preparing the form of the reports required by paragraphs 104 and 105, the Department may use "check off" type boxes to facilitate completion of such reports. In documenting motor vehicle and pedestrian stops as required by these paragraphs, the Department may create new forms or modify existing forms.

Continue
General Information Special Litigation Section
 
Leadership
Jonathan M. Smith
Chief
Contact
Special Litigation Section
(202) 514-6255
toll-free at (877) 218-5228

FAX - (202) 514-0212
Alt. FAX - (202) 514-6273
Email - Special.Litigation@usdoj.gov
Stay Connected YouTube MySpace Twitter Facebook Sign Up for E-Mail Updates Subscribe to News Feeds