On November 14, 2014, the City of Albuquerque, the Albuquerque Police Department and the United State Department of Justice (DOJ) entered into a stipulated Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA). The settlement was the result of an 18-month long investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ) that found that the Albuquerque Police Department engaged in an pattern of “excessive use of force” and “deadly force”, especially when dealing with the mentally ill. The DOJ investigation also found a “culture of aggression” existed within the APD,
The Court Approved Settlement Agreement mandates 271 police reforms, the appointment of a Federal Monitor and the filing of Independent Monitor’s reports (IMRs). There are 276 paragraphs in 10 sections within the CASA with measurable requirements that the monitor reports on.
The link to the 118-page CASA is here:
17th FEDERAL MONITORS COMPLIANCE REPORT FILED
On May 10, 2023 Federal Court Appointed Independent Monitor James Ginger filed his 17th Report on the Compliance Levels of the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) and the City of Albuquerque with Requirements of the Court-Approved Settlement Agreement. The 17th Federal Monitors report is a 194 page report that covers the reporting period of August 1, 2022, through January 31, 2023.
This blog article reports on the general findings of the 17th Federal Monitors Report. The article is not to be considered exhaustive and does not go over the specific terms of the CASA where the Monitor found APD not in Operational Compliance. The postscript to this blog article lists the 21 provisions of the CASA with page number where the Federal Monitor found APD not in Operational Compliance, but did find it in Primary and Secondary Compliance. Six of the 21 provisions where the Federal Monitor found that Operational Compliance was not achieved involve the Citizens Police Oversight Agency (CPOA) reporting that the agency is failing with respect to training and resources, including personnel, to achieve its mandates under the CASA. It is the City Council that has failed to provide sufficient resources and make necessary changes to the ordinance that created the agency.
The 17th Independent Monitor’s Report covers the time period of August 1, 2022 through January 31, 2023. It found APD was only 3 percentage points from full compliance with the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA). Under the terms and conditions of the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA), once APD achieves a 95% compliance rate in the 3 identified compliance levels and maintains it for 2 consecutive years, the case can be dismissed. Originally, APD was to have come into compliance within 4 years and the case was to be dismissed in 2018.
The 3 compliance levels are explained as follows:
Primary compliance is the “policy” part of compliance. To attain primary compliance, APD must have in place operational policies and procedures designed to guide officers, supervisors and managers in the performance of the tasks outlined in the CASA. As a matter of course, the policies must be reflective of the requirements of the CASA; must comply with national standards for effective policing policy; and must demonstrate trainable and evaluable policy components.
Secondary compliance is attained by implementing supervisory, managerial and executive practices designed to and be effective in implementing the policy as written, e.g., sergeants routinely enforce the policies among field personnel and are held accountable by managerial and executive levels of the department for doing so. By definition, there should be operational artifacts such as reports, disciplinary records, remands to retraining, follow-up, and even revisions to policies if necessary, indicating that the policies developed in the first stage of compliance are known to, followed by, and important to supervisory and managerial levels of the department.
Operational compliance is attained at the point that the adherence to policies is apparent in the day-to-day operation of the agency e.g., line personnel are routinely held accountable for compliance, not by the monitoring staff, but by their sergeants, and sergeants are routinely held accountable for compliance by their lieutenants and command staff. In other words, the APD “owns” and enforces its policies.
PROGRESS MADE IN COMPLIANNCE LEVELS
Operational Compliance is considered the most difficult to implement and achieve. The 15th and 16th reports released in 2022 saw significant gains in Operational Compliance but the 17th has brought APD the closest it has ever been to full compliance with 92% reported and with 95% needed to be achieved and sustained for 2 years in all 3 compliance levels. Review of the past 4 reports and the compliance levels are worth noting and are as follows:
17th FEDERAL MONITOR’S REPORT COMPLIANCE LEVELS
The Federal Monitor IMR-17 report which covers August 1, 2022, through January 31, 2023, reported APD’s compliance levels were as follows:
Primary Compliance 100%
Secondary Compliance 100%
Operational Compliance 92% (95% needed to be achieved and sustained for 2 years)
16th FEDERAL MONITOR’S REPORT COMPLIANCE LEVELS
The Federal Monitor IMR-16 report which covers which covers February 1, 2022, through July 31, 2022, reported APD’s compliance levels were as follows:
Primary Compliance: 100% (No change)
Secondary Compliance: 99% (No change)
Operational Compliance: 80%. (10% increase from 70%)
The link to review IMR-16 is here:
15th FEDERAL MONITOR’S REPORT COMPLIANCE LEVELS
On May 11, 2022, Federal Court Appointed Independent Monitor filed his 15th Report on the Compliance Levels. The 15th Federal Monitors report covers the 6 month time frame of August 1, 2021 to January 31, 2022. APD’s compliance levels in the IMR-15 Federal Monitor’s report were as follows:
Primary Compliance: 100%
Secondary Compliance: 99%
Operational Compliance: 70%.
The link to review IMR-15 is here:
14th FEDERAL MONITOR’S REPORT COMPLIANCE LEVELS
The 14th Federal Monitors report covers the 6 month time frame of February 1, 2021 through July 31, 2021. At the end of the IMR-14 reporting period, APD’s compliance levels were as follows:
Primary Compliance: 100 %;
Secondary Compliance: 82 %
Operational Compliance: 62 %
Note that from February 1, 2021, the beginning of the IMR-14 reporting period, to January 31, 2023, the end of IMR-17, APD has sustained a 95% compliance rate or better in Primary Compliance for a total of 24 months or two full years.
Note that from August 1, 2021, the beginning of the IMR-15 reporting period, to January 31, 2023, the end of IMR-17, APD has sustained a 95% compliance rate or better in Secondary Compliance for a total of 17 months.
17th FEDERAL MONITOR’S REPORT HIGHLIGHTS
According to the 17th Federal Monitor’s Report, APD has now reached 100% Primary Compliance which involves operational policies and procedures, 100% Secondary Compliance which involves implementing supervisory, managerial and executive practices and 92% Operational Compliance which involves officers following policies and being corrected when they don’t. Operational Compliance improved by 12%, going from 80% to 92% since the 16th report.
According to the 17th Federal Monitors Report, APD officers are also using force less than they were three years ago, with 284 incidents reported compared with 484 in 2020. There were 47 of the highest “Level 3” uses of force in 2022, a year when APD police shot a record high 18 people, killing 10 of them. Level 3 is force that results in, or could reasonably result in, serious physical injury, hospitalization, or death.
During this reporting period, APD opened 52 Level 1 use of force cases for supervisory review. In contrast, APD opened 83 Level 1 use of force cases for supervisory review during IMR-16, 79 Level 1 use of force cases for supervisory review during IMR-15, 116 during IMR-14, 111 new cases during IMR-13, and 173 supervisory use of force reviews during IMR-12.
BACKLOG OF USE OF FORCE CASES
The External Force Investigation Team (EFIT) was created on February 26, 2021 by an agreed court order after the Federal Monitor found that APD intentionally did not investigate 667 of use of force cases. A Court Order was agreed to by the city after the Department of Justice made it know it was prepared to seek Contempt of Court for willful violation of the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA) and seek sanctions against the city.
It was on November 12, 2021 that Federal Court Appointed Monitor James Ginger filed with the Federal Court his 14th Independent Monitors Report. The report is the most critical and scathing as to the city’s intentional noncompliance and failure to investigate hundreds of police use of force cases. The report covers the time frame of February 1, 2021 to July 31, 2021. The link to review the entire 331-page report is here:
According to the IMR-14 report, the most important issues affecting APD during the reporting period involve misconduct investigations, use of force investigations, the lack of progressive discipline when misconduct is found, and supervision and leadership. The report found a backlog of 667 uninvestigated use of force cases. Approximately 83% of the cases were time-barred for discipline in accordance with the police union contract should misconduct be found. Since its discovery, and according to the 14th IME report, backlog was reduced from 667 cases to 660 cases as of October 25, 2021.
On February 6, 2021 a hearing was held on the 14th Independent Monitor’s Report where a plan was unveiled to tackle the 660-case backlog of uninvestigated level 2 and 3 use of force cases. Level 2 use of force is when an officer has to use force and the person is not injured. Level 3 includes anything that sends someone to the hospital or death, like officer-involved shootings. It was revealed that the External Force Investigation Team would assume responsibility for reviewing the backlog of cases.
It was during the 16th Independent Monitoring Teams reporting period that a the Stipulated Order was approved by the Court in 2021 and amended to authorize a secondary Eternal Force Investigation Team (EFIT) to address the backlogged Level 2 and Level 3 cases. The EFIT-2 the team was designated to handle these cases. The EFIT-2 became operationalized during the latter part of the 16th monitoring period. At the close of that monitoring period, approximately 2% of the backlogged cases had been closed.
Two weeks after the close of IMR-17, EFIT prepared its sixth Quarterly Report to the Court and the report reflected approximately 15% of the backlogged cases had been completed or 100 cases resolved with 557 still pending completion. (667 X 15% = 100, 667-100 =557). See page 45 of 17th Federal Monitors Report.
See Page 9 of IMR 1.
TRAINING OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS FORCE DIVISION
It was in July 2021 that the External Force Investigation Team (EFIT) began training the Internal Affairs Force Division on how to investigate use-of-force cases, making sure they meet deadlines and follow procedures. Ginger wrote in his 17th report that the EFIT project has been “very successful” with the new Internal Affairs Force Division commander also making “a noticeable impact” in the quality and timeliness of investigations.
Independent Monitor Ginger reported in his 17th report that the Internal Affairs Force Division went from following EFIT’s investigation standards from 76% of the time in 2022 to 96% of the time by January 2023. During the time period, 3 Internal Affairs Force Division detectives have been released to investigate use-of-force cases without EFIT’s oversight and 11 others are in the transition phase.
Ginger cautioned that APD needs to ensure quality investigations continue once EFIT passes oversight responsibilities wholly back to the Internal Affairs Force Division thereby testing its abilities to sustain the progress made. Ginger reported:
“It is time for the highest level executives at APD to become hyper-focused in its CASA compliance efforts and not allow any degree of complacency to seep in. … [Leadership need to] appreciate the current standards that are in place, reflect on the past and consider the technical assistance they have received from the monitoring team over the years. … The lessons learned will help inform future decisions that help sustain and build upon the progress of reform.”
The link to the quoted news source is here:
In the 17th Independent Federal Monitors report, the Monitor also emphasized the challenge facing APD with the External Force Investigation Team:
“EFIT will eventually pass oversight responsibilities back to APD, which will test its ability to sustain the obvious progress made with day-today external oversight. With the progress APD has made over the past two years, now is the time for the highest-level executives at APD to become hyper-focused in its CASA compliance efforts and not allow any degree of complacency to seep into its daily business practices. As APD progresses through 2023, we encourage all supervisors and commanders to appreciate the current standards that are in place, reflect on the past, and consider the technical assistance they have received from the monitoring team over the years. The lessons learned will help inform future decisions that help sustain and build upon the progress of reform.”
See Page 9 of IMR 17.
17th FEDERAL MONITOR’S EXECUTIVE SUMMARY HIGHTLIGHTS
Findings contained in the Executive Summary of the Independent Monitors 17th report that are worth noting and edited are as follows:
“APD has made substantial progress this reporting period. … [S]everal of the more difficult compliance processes have moved into operational compliance this reporting period. These include … the timely completion of Level 1 use of force investigations within the 90-day timeline required by the CASA.
APD’s training processes continue to be professionally planned, documented, and delivered. … [A]ll training requirements articulated in the CASA are now in compliance.
Force investigations continue to be professionally and timely completed and are well-documented. The Internal Affairs Force Division and the External Force Investigation Team continue to generate industry-standard force investigations. …
[T]he rate of uses of force has remained relatively stable over the last three reporting periods, with these levels significantly lower than three years ago.
All … area command investigations were consistently completed in accordance with CASA requirements.
Leadership at APD is currently engaged in the process of planning the transition of force investigations back to Internal Affairs Force Division in order to field internal processes that are CASA congruent. This will allow APD to demonstrate its willingness and ability to field industry-standard force-investigation processes without external assistance—an important capability to come into compliance with the force-investigation requirements of the CASA.
There remains work to be done, however. For example, some supervisors occasionally continue to misclassify uses of force, such as Level 1 use of force misclassified as Low-Level Control Tactics or Level 2 use of force misclassified as Level 1, thus yielding cursory reviews or no reviews of critical incidents.
[There has been] a degradation in the quality of case reviews and assessments by some members of the Force Review Board FRB during this reporting period. … APD has already moved to address these issues.
APD’s Operational Compliance is at 92% this reporting period. APD is approaching the 95% Operational Compliance levels required for full compliance with the CASA. APD was in 80% Operational Compliance for IMR-16. It is at 92 percent Operational Compliance for IMR-17. In the monitor’s opinion, we consider this change to be significant. We reiterate our long-standing advice to APD: the key to compliance is leadership and supervision. Those two processes will be the key to CASA compliance moving forward.”
17th FEDERAL MONITOR’S REPORT SUMMARY
At the end of the 17th Federal Monitor’s report, Federal Monitor Ginger offered the following conclusions:
“APD has reached a significant milestone during the IMR-17 reporting period: Primary and Secondary Compliance findings are at 100%. This represents an exceptionally strong foundation for future efforts to achieve full operational compliance. Good policy is in place. Strong training processes are in place. Operational Compliance is at a new high, 92%.
The final obstacle to Operational Compliance continues to be in-field practices. As we have noted in the past, achievement of Operational Compliance is almost completely reliant on supervisors (sergeants) and mid-command (lieutenants and commanders).
Reviews of compliance for IMR-17 continue to identify several needs for APD leadership, mid management, and supervisory focus. These include:
- Ensuring appropriate classifications of uses of force at all levels;
- Applying progressive discipline;
- Build “backlog-proof” force investigation practices by monitoring timelines for force investigations and ensuring APD proactively identifies cases in danger of falling out of established timelines;
- Continuing the processes to train, staff, and organize internal systems so that APD can replace the functions of EFIT with equally competent internal oversight systems for use of force and other CASA-congruent field operations.
[The monitors team] continue to recommend that the City consider a staffing study to identify current needs at the Citizens Police Oversight Board (CPOB), especially the investigative team, to determine if CPOB is adequately staffed and supervised to ensure timely completion of high-quality case investigations. As we have noted, we are concerned about CPOA staffing and oversight systems that may well be harbingers of potential difficulties at the agency.
During the 17th reporting period, [the monitors team] noted substantial movement toward effective command and supervisory control process that generate CASA-compliant practices in the field.
Operational Compliance increased substantially this reporting period, from 80% to 92%. This is the fourth monitor’s report in a row that has shown significant improvements in Operational Compliance.
While most of the monitor’s comments in this report are data-based, as always, we would be remiss if we did not recognize a new attitude at APD when it comes to CASA compliance. We note, again this reporting period, a keen focus on compliance at executive, command, and in-field operations levels.
APD systems are continuing to be diligently focused on the CASA and compliance practices in the field.
What [the monitors team] have seen at APD in the 17th monitoring period indicates an agency that is committed to full compliance with the CASA. This is part of a two-year trend established in IMR-14, with substantial increases in compliance levels in the last three reporting periods.”
CITY SEEKS REDUCTION IN BILLING
On April 14, KOAT TV, Target 7 reported the city continues to pay the court appointed Federal Independent Monitor James Ginger and his team of 14 experts the same salary it has paid since 2019, four years after the court-mandated reforms with the DOJ were established. Albuquerque originally was paying Ginger $120,000 a month for his services as an independent monitor. Since 2019, Ginger is being paid another $13,000 more or a total of $133,000 a month or $1,596,000 a year to continue with the monitoring.
The link to the Channel 7 report is here:
On April 17, the City sent Ginger a letter suggesting that the Independent Monitoring team agree to a 40% pay cut effective June 1 to go from $133,000 a month to $80,000. Ginger and his team of 14 experts have been paid well over $10 Million since 2015. The Federal Monitor’s workload has been reduced with APD now self monitoring 25% of the settlement terms. The monitor’s report have also dramatically changed in scope, going from 330 pages (15th IME report) to 194 pages (17th IME report.)
TERMINATION AND SUSPENSION PROVSIONS OF THE CASA
The Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA) allows for suspension and termination of the settlement agreement. Those provisions are as follows:
“Termination of the Agreement
- The City will endeavor to reach full and effective compliance with this Agreement within four years of its Effective Date. The Parties agree to jointly ask the Court to terminate this Agreement after this date, provided that the City has been in full and effective compliance with this Agreement for two years. “Full and Effective Compliance” shall be defined to require sustained compliance with all material requirements of this Agreement or sustained and continuing improvement in constitutional policing, as demonstrated pursuant to the Agreement’s outcome measures.
- If after six years from the Effective Date the Parties disagree whether the City has been in full and effective compliance for two years, either Party may seek to terminate this Agreement. In the case of termination sought by the City, prior to filing a motion to terminate, the City agrees to notify DOJ in writing when the City has determined that it is in full and effective compliance with this Agreement and that such compliance has been maintained for no less than two years.”
The CASA does have a provision that allows suspension of the monitoring. Specifically, paragraph 302 of the CASA provides:
“302. Where the Parties agree, the Monitor shall refrain from conducting a compliance review of a requirement previously found by the Monitor to be in sustained compliance for at least two years pursuant to audits or reviews, or where outcome assessments or other information indicate that the outcome intended by the requirement has been achieved.”
The link to the 118-page CASA is here:
REFORMS ACHIEVED UNDER THE CASA
On November 16 , 2023, it will be a full 9 years that has expired since the city entered into the CASA with the DOJ. It was originally agreed that implementation of all the settlement terms would be completed within 4 years, but because of previous delay and obstruction tactics found by the Federal Monitor by APD management and the police officers union as well as APD backsliding in implementing the reforms, 5 years has been added on. Now after almost 9 full years, the federal oversight and the CASA have produced results. Reforms achieved under the CASA can be identified and are as follows:
- New “use of force” and “use of deadly force” policies have been written, implemented and all APD sworn have received training on the policies.
- All sworn police officers have received crisis management intervention training.
- APD has created a “Use of Force Review Board” that oversees all internal affairs investigations of use of force and deadly force.
- The Internal Affairs Unit has been divided into two sections, one dealing with general complaints and the other dealing with use of force incidents.
- Sweeping changes ranging from APD’s SWAT team protocols, to banning choke-holds, to auditing the use of every Taser carried by officers and re-writing and implementation of new use of force and deadly force policies have been completed.
- “Constitutional policing” practices and methods, and mandatory crisis intervention techniques an de-escalation tactics with the mentally ill have been implemented at the APD police academy with all sworn police also receiving the training.
- APD has adopted a new system to hold officers and supervisors accountable for all use of force incidents with personnel procedures implemented detailing how use of force cases are investigated.
- APD has revised and updated its policies on the mandatory use of lapel cameras by all sworn police officers.
- The Repeat Offenders Project, known as ROP, has been abolished.
- Civilian Police Oversight Agency has been created, funded, fully staffed and a director was hired.
- The Community Policing Counsels (CPCs) have been created in all area commands.
- The Mental Health Advisory Committee has been implemented.
- The External Force Investigation Team (EFIT) was created and is training the Internal Affairs Force Division on how to investigate use-of-force cases, making sure they meet deadlines and follow procedures.
- Millions have been spent each year on new programs and training of new cadets and police officers on constitutional policing practices.
- APD officers are routinely found using less force than they were before and well documented use of force investigations are now being produced in a timely manner.
- APD has assumed the self-monitoring of at least 25% of the CASA reforms and is likely capable of assuming more.
- The APD Compliance Bureau has been fully operational and staffed with many positions created dealing directly with all the reform efforts and all the duties and responsibilities that come with self-assessment.
- APD has attained a 100% Primary Compliance rate, a 100% Secondary Compliance rate and a 92% Operational Compliance rate.
COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS
One of the biggest complaints of all the 18 DOJ consent decrees that exist in the country to deal with police misconduct and excessive use of force cases is that they go “on and on and on” for years with no end on sight. When the CASA was first agreed to in 2014, it was agreed that all the reforms under the CASA would be fully implemented within 4 years or by 2018. Instead, the case has been going on for 9 years after a period of time when the Federal Monitor found that APD repeatedly did a “backslide” in implementing the reforms and coming into compliance.
It was in November 12, 2020 that the 12th Compliance Report was filed and when Federal Court Appointed Monitor James Ginger declared that APD was on “on the brink of catastrophic failure” in implementing the reforms. The 12th Audit Report was for the period that ended on July 31, 2020. The Federal Monitor found the following compliance levels:
PRIMARY COMPLIANCE: 100% with no change from 11th report.
SECONDARY COMPLIANCE: 91%, with a loss of -2.2% from the 11th report.
OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE: 64%, with a loss of -3.0%.
It took APD a full 2 years and 6 months from July 31, 2020, the end of the 12th reporting period, to January 31, 2023, the end of the 17th reporting period for APD to turn things around and it was not at all easy. Along the way APD and the city were forced to agree to a court order after the Federal Monitor found that APD intentionally did not investigate 667 of use of force cases and was forced to agree to the creation of the External Force Investigation Team EFIT. On February 26, 2021, the City of Albuquerque and the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) entered into a Stipulated Agreement filed with the United States District Court to stay a contempt of court proceeding against the city for willful violations of the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA).
APD HAS FULFILLED THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE SETTLEMENT
Under the terms and conditions of the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA), once APD achieves a 95% compliance rate in the 3 identified compliance levels and maintains it for 2 consecutive years, the case can be dismissed. APD was to have come into full compliance in the 3 compliance levels within 4 years or by 2018.
Operational Compliance is the single most important compliance level of all 3 and it is where the “rubber hits the road” with respect to the reforms. Operational compliance is attained at the point that the adherence to policies is apparent in the day-to-day operation of the agency. It is achieved when line personnel are routinely held accountable for compliance by their sergeants, and sergeants are routinely held accountable for compliance by their lieutenants and command staff. In other words, the APD “owns” and enforces its policies. Operational Compliance still has to be achieved at a 95% level, with the other two compliance levels already at 100% and they must also be sustained for 2 years before the case can be dismissed.
After 9 years of implementing the mandating DOJ reforms, and millions spent on training, APD is finally on the verge of implementing the 271 mandated reforms under the CASA. APD is commended for attaining a 100% Primary Compliance rate, a 100% Secondary Compliance rate and achieving a 92% Operational Compliance rate. The 2 consecutive years for compliance in all 3 compliance levels should be waived or reduced dramatically given the fact that a 95% compliance rate or better has been achieved in Primary Compliance for a total of 24 months or two full years and a 95% compliance rate or better in Secondary Compliance for a total of 17 months.
APD has fulfilled the spirit and intent of the settlement. The city can argue “full and effective compliance” with all material requirements of the CASA and with its continuing improvement in constitutional policing as demonstrated by the agreement’s outcome measures reported in the 17th Federal Monitor’s Report. The two years of 95% compliance should be deemed as accomplished give the fact that the settlement has now gone on for over 5 years than what was originally agreed to.
CITY NEEDS TO MOVE TO DISMISS CASE
On July 27, 2022, the Albuquerque Police Department and the U.S. Department of Justice announce they had agreed to suspend several paragraphs of the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA.) According to APD, the agreement “essentially removes about a quarter of oversight requirements.” The city reached an agreement with the DOJ to suspend the monitoring of upwards of 25% of the paragraphs in the CASA. Those paragraphs have all been in operational compliance for more than 5 years. Under the stipulated agreement between the City and the DOJ, the city is now self-monitor 62 paragraphs of the CASA.
Given the extent of the compliance levels, the work of the Federal Monitor can be declared a success and he should be winding down his work seeking to close out the case within the next 6 months and prepare his very last Independent Monitor’s report by the end of the year. With that in mind, the federal monitors contract should be renegotiated to include a reduction in pay and termination of the monitoring services.
The city should seek to negotiate a stipulated dismissal of the case with the Department of Justice (DOJ) by the end of the year. Should the DOJ refuse, the City Attorney should move to immediately to dismiss the case under the termination and suspension provisions of the CASA by filing a Motion to Dismiss the case and force the issue with an evidentiary hearing and let the assigned federal judge decide it.
The following provisions of the CASA were reported in the 17th Federal Monitors report as being in “Primary Compliance” and “Secondary Compliance” but not in “Operational Compliance:
Assessing Compliance with Paragraph 47: Quality of Supervisory Force Investigations, page 32
Assessing Compliance with Paragraph 54: Command Review of Force, Page 37
Assessing Compliance with Paragraph 69: IAFD Responsibilities in Serious Uses of Force, pages 52-54
Assessing Compliance with Paragraph 71: FIS Investigative Timelines, pages 55,56
Compliance with Paragraph 73: FIS Findings Not Supported by Preponderance of the Evidence, page 57
Assessing Compliance with Paragraph 78: Force Review Board Responsibilities, pages 59 to 69
Assessing Compliance with Paragraph 79: Annual Use of Force Reporting, pages 69 to 71
Compliance with Paragraph 183: Investigations Reach Reliable Conclusions, page 109
Assessing Compliance with Paragraph 190: Considering All Relevant Evidence, page 112
Assessing Compliance with Paragraph 191: 90 Days to Complete Administrative Investigations, page 113, 114
Assessing Compliance with Paragraphs 198–200: Staffing and Training Requirements, pages 117 to 121
Assessing Compliance with Paragraph 201: Fact Based Discipline. Page 129 and 130
Assessing Compliance Paragraph 215 Paragraph 215 stipulates: “The Early Intervention System shall be a component of an integrated employee management system and shall include a computerized relational database, which shall be used to collect, maintain, integrate, and retrieve data department-wide and for each officer …. , page 140, 141
Assessing Compliance Paragraph 218 where “APD shall provide in-service training to all employees…” page 142
Civilian Police Oversight Agency Implementation, page 178 and 179
Assessing Compliance with Paragraph 273: Requirements for Service of CPOA Members, pages 179, 180
Assessing Compliance with Paragraph 274: CPOA Pre-Service Training, pages 180-181
Assessing Compliance with Paragraph 275: CPOA Annual Training, 181, 182
Assessing Compliance with Paragraph 276: CPOA Ride-Alongs, page 182
Assessing Compliance with Paragraph 277: CPOA Authority and Resources to Make Recommendations, page 183
Assessing Compliance with Paragraph 281: Prompt and Expeditious Investigation of Complaints, pages 184, 18
Link to 17th Federal Monitor’s Report