Author: aprilurban

1. On March 14, 2013, at the request of the Mayor of Cleveland and others, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced the beginning of its investigation into CDP’s policies and practices to determine whether CDP engages in a pattern or practice of the use of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. 14141 (“Section 14141”).

2. As part of its investigation, DOJ, in consultation with experts in police practices, conducted a comprehensive assessment of officers’ use of force and CDP’s policies, procedures, training, systems of accountability, and community engagement. The investigation included multi-day onsite tours of CD P’s facilities, District command stations, and ride-alongs with officers in every police District; interviews with Cleveland officials, CDP’s command staff, members of CDP’s specialized units, supervisors, and police officers; an extensive review of documents; and numerous meetings with residents, community groups, members of religious communities, the Office of Professional Standards, the Civilian Police Review Board, and other stakeholders.

3. The City and CDP cooperated during the investigation and provided access to documents, facilities, and personnel. Many members of Cleveland’s diverse communities, including community advocates, religious leaders, and members of CDP’s patrol officer and management unions, took an active interest in the investigation and played a critical role in providing information and facilitating a thorough investigation.

4. On December 4, 2014, the Department of Justice publicly announced that it had reasonable cause to believe that CDP engages in a pattern or practice of using excessive force. DOJ announced that it had reasonable cause to believe that, although most force used by CDP officers was reasonable, a significant amount of deadly and less lethal force was excessive and constituted an ongoing risk to the public and to CDP officers. DOJ also determined that systemic deficiencies contribute to the pattern or practice of excessive force. These deficiencies relate to operational and structural areas of CDP, including its accountability systems, resource deployment, community policing efforts, policies, and officer support, training, equipment, and supervision. Although DOJ did not specifically investigate CDP’s search, seizure, and arrest practices, DOJ’s force review revealed Fourth Amendment concerns in those areas as well.

5. The City agrees that DOJ’s findings raise issues of importance to the City and the community that should be addressed. To that end, and simultaneous with the release of DOJ’s findings, the Parties issued a Joint Statement of Principles agreeing to begin negotiations with the intention of reaching a court-enforceable settlement agreement, to include the appointment of an outside independent monitor to ensure compliance with the terms of this Agreement. In agreeing to address these important issues, the City is not agreeing with the findings.

6. Constitutional policing and effective policing are interdependent, and rely on a strong partnership between the police department and the communities that it serves. To ensure that the reforms embodied in this Agreement are responsive to community and officer concerns, the Parties consulted extensively with community leaders, police officers, advocates, residents, and other concerned individuals who offered meaningful recommendations and insights on reform. This Agreement reflects the broad input received by the Parties from the diverse communities that make up the City of Cleveland. The Parties are committed to ongoing engagement with community stakeholders to foster continued participation and long-term sustainability of the reforms created by this Agreement.

7. This Agreement was reached as a result of the authority granted to the Department of Justice under Section 14141 to seek declaratory or equitable relief to remedy a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives individuals of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or federal law.

8. This Agreement is not intended to limit the lawful authority of the Mayor of Cleveland over the CDP or the lawful authority of the Chief of Police to oversee the operations of CDP.

9. The Parties acknowledge the appropriation authority of Cleveland City Council under the Ohio Revised Code and the Cleveland Charter and Codified Ordinances. This Agreement is not intended to override the lawful authority of the Cleveland City Council to appropriate funds.

10. This Agreement is not intended to I imit the lawful authority of CDP officers to use objectively reasonable force or otherwise fulfill their law enforcement obligations under the Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of Ohio.

11. This Agreement will not be construed as an admission or evidence of liability under any federal, State, or municipal law including 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Nor is the City’s entry into this Agreement an admission by the City, CDP, or its officers and employees that they have engaged in any unconstitutional, illegal, or otherwise improper activities or conduct. The Parties acknowledge the many CDP officers who have continued to work diligently and with integrity despite challenging circumstances.

12. This Agreement will constitute the entire integrated agreement of the Parties. No prior drafts or prior or contemporaneous communications, oral or written, will be relevant or admissible for purposes of determining the meaning of any provisions herein in any litigation or any other proceeding, except the Department of Justice’s December 4, 2014 Findings Letter.

13. This Agreement is binding upon all Parties hereto, by and through their officials, agents, employees, and successors. If the City establishes or reorganizes a government agency or entity whose function includes overseeing, regulating, accrediting, investigating, or otherwise reviewing the operations of CDP or any aspect thereof, the City agrees to ensure that these functions and entities are consistent with the terms of this Agreement and will incorporate the terms of this Agreement into the oversight, regulatory, accreditation, investigation, or review functions of the government agency or entity as necessary to ensure consistency.

14. This Agreement recognizes the importance of community input into the way police services are delivered. Ongoing community input into the development of reforms, the establishment of police priorities, and mechanisms to promote community confidence in CDP will strengthen CDP and the police-community relationship that is necessary to promote public safety. To promote public trust and confidence in CDP, constitutional and effective policing, officer and public safety, and the sustainability of reforms, CDP will create, in accordance with this Agreement, formal and informal mechanisms that facilitate ongoing communication between CDP and the many Cleveland communities it serves.

A. Community Police Commission

15. To leverage the experience and expertise of the people of Cleveland, and to ensure that CDP recognizes and operates in a manner consistent with cooperative community understanding and engagement, the City will establish, within 90 days of the Effective Date, a Community Police Commission (”Commission”) consisting of 13 members who represent the many and diverse communities in Cleveland. The Commission will have the following mandate: a. to make recommendations to the Chief of Police and the City, including the Mayor and the City Council, on policies and practices related to community and problem-oriented policing, bias-free policing, and police transparency; b. to work with the many communities that make up Cleveland for the purpose of developing recommendations for police practices that reflect an understanding of the values and priorities of Cleveland residents; and c. to report to the City and community as a whole and to provide transparency on police department reforms.

16. To ensure diverse representation, within 30 days of the Effective Date, the City will establish a selection panel made up of representatives from each or the following:

(a) faith based organizations;

(b) civil rights advocates;

(c) the business/philanthropic community;

(d) organizations representing communities of color;

(e) advocacy organizations;

(f) youth or student organizations;

(g) academia; and

(h) individuals with expertise in the challenges facing people with mental illness or the homeless.

The members of this panel will be selected by the Mayor in consultation with DOJ and with participation by members of Cleveland City Council as determined by the Council President. Within 30 days of their appointment, the selection panel will accept applications for membership on the Commission from individuals who reside or work in the City of Cleveland. Within 30 days thereafter, in an open public forum, the selection panel will recommend 10 persons to be appointed as members of the Commission for a term of no more than 4 years, ensuring at least 1 representative from each of the categories identified above. The persons recommended by the selection panel shall be appointed as provided in the Charter. Current members of the selection panel cannot apply to become members of the Commission. In addition, the Cleveland Patrolmen’s Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the Black Shield will each identify one member to be appointed as provided in the Charter to serve on the Commission. Vacancies within the original four year term will be filled in the same fashion as the original appointments. At the end of four years, a selection panel will be reconstituted and members of the Commission will be selected as described above.

One member of the Commission will be selected by the Commission to attend meetings of, and receive relevant information and reports from the Community Relations Board of the City of Cleveland, and one member of the Community Relations Board will be selected by the Community Relations Board to attend meetings of, and receive relevant information and reports from the Commission. The Commission will meet periodically with the Chief of Police and provide recommendations and reports to him or her, but remain independent from, the Chief of Police, the Mayor, and the City Council.

17. The Commission will:

a. within 90 days of appointment, hold public meetings across the City, complete an assessment of CDP’s bias-free policing policies, practices, and training, and make recommendations;

b. on an ongoing basis, including through its membership on the Training Review Committee, assist as appropriate in CDP’s development of training related to bias-free policing and cultural competency;

c. on an ongoing basis, assess CDP’s community activities, and make recommendations for additional strategies for CDP to consider to increase community engagement with and community confidence in CDP;

d. on an ongoing basis, review CDP’s civilian oversight structure to determine if there are changes it recommends for improving CDP’s accountability and transparency; and

e. perform other function as set out in this Agreement.

18. In addition to the above, the Commission has the authority to: a. review and comment on CDP’s policies and practices related to use of force, search and seizure, and data collection and retention;

b. review and comment on CDP’s implementation of initiatives, programs, and activities that are intended to support reform; and

c. hold public meetings to discuss the Monitor’s reports and to receive community feedback concerning CDP’s compliance with this Agreement.

19. The City will provide access to all information requested by the Commission related to its mandate, authority, and duties unless it is law enforcement sensitive, legally restricted, or would disclose a personnel action.

20. At least annually, the Commission will issue reports, including any recommendations for improvement, related to each activity that it undertakes. The City will post the Commission’s reports and recommendations to the City’s website.

21. The City will consider and timely respond in writing to the Commission’s recommendations for improvements. Those responses also will be posted to the City’s website.

22. The budget for the Commission will be visible as a separate line item in the budget proposal that is submitted annually pursuant to the Charter to the Cleveland City Council with the appropriations ordinance. The Parties will endeavor to secure private funding for the Commission as appropriate. The Monitor will analyze the Commission’s budget and advise the Parties and the Court as to whether it affords sufficient independence and resources to meet the terms of this agreement.

B. District Policing Committees

23. Working jointly, the Commission, CDP, and Community Relations Board (“CRB”), will work with the District Policing Committees (formerly called District Community Relations Committees) to fac ilitate regular communication and cooperation between CDP and community leaders at the local level. These District Policing Committees should meet, at a minimum, every quarter.

24. Working jointly, the Commission, CDP, and CRB will develop a mechanism to recruit and expand the membership of the District Policing Committees, each of which should include a representative cross-section of community members, including, for example, representatives of social services providers, faith leaders, local business owners, youth, etc., from that District. Each District Policing Committee also include at least one CDP officer from that District. CDP will work with the Commission to select officers for each District Policing Committee.

25. CDP will work closely with the District Policing Committees to identi fy strategies to address crime and safety issues in their District. In developing appropriate strategies, the District Policing Committees should consider and address law enforcement priorities and community policing strategies in their District, and should address any concerns or recommendations about specific CDP policing tactics and initiatives in their District.

26. At least annually, each District Policing Committee will present its identified strategies, concerns and recommendations to the Commission. At the same time, an officer who is a member of the District Policing Committee will present to the Commission CDP’s assessment of ways to address, and barriers to, implementing the strategies, concerns and recommendations of the Committee.

35. CDP will deliver police services with the goal of ensuring that they are equitable, respectful, and free of unlawful bias, in a manner that promotes broad community engagement and confidence in CDP. CDP expects all officers to treat all members of the Cleveland community with courtesy, professionalism, and respect, and not to use harassing, intimidating, or derogatory language.

36. CDP will integrate bias-free policing principles into its management, policies and procedures, job descriptions, recruitment, training, personnel evaluations, resource deployment, tactics, and accountability systems.

37. CDP will administer all activities without discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, disability, age, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

38. Within 18 months of the Effective Date, CDP will develop a bias-free policing policy that incorporates, as appropriate, the recommendations developed by the Commission pursuant to paragraph 17, and that provides clear guidance to officers that biased policing, including deciding to detain a motorist or pedestrian based solely on racial stereotypes, is prohibited.

39. Within 18 months of the Effective Date, with input from the Commission, CDP will develop training that incorporates the principles of procedural justice and that is designed to ensure that police services are delivered free from bias. The Monitor will review the training to assess whether it is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type.

40. The training will be provided to all officers and will include:

a. constitutional and other legal requirements related to equal protection and unlawful discrimination, including the requirements of this Agreement;

b. strategies, such as problem-oriented policing, procedural justice, and recognizing implicit bias, to avoid conduct that may lead to biased policing or the perception of biased policing;

c. historical and cultural systems that perpetuate racial and ethnic profiling;

d. identification of racial or ethnic profiling practices, and police practices that have a disparate impact on certain demographic categories;

e. self-evaluation strategies to identify racial or ethnic profiling;

f. District-level cultural competency training regarding the histories and culture of local immigrant and ethnic communities;

g. police and community perspectives related to bias-free policing;

h. the protection of civil rights as a central part of the police mission and as essential to effective policing;

i. instruction in the data collection protocols required by this Agreement; and

j. methods, strategics, and techniques to reduce misunderstanding, conflict, and complaints due to perceived bias or discrimination.

41. Supervisor training will include:

a. how to identify biased police practices when reviewing investigatory stop, arrest, and use of force data;

b. how to respond to a complaint of biased police practices, including conducting a preliminary investigation of the complaint in order to preserve key evidence and potential witnesses;

c. how to evaluate complaints of improper pedestrian stops for potential biased police practices; and

d. engaging the community and developing positive relationships with diverse community groups.

42. Officers also will receive annual in-service training on bias-free policing that is adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope.

43. To help ensure that police services are delivered in a manner free from bias, CDP will analyze data pursuant to paragraph 265.

44. Within 18 months of the Effective Date, the appointing authority will consider principles of bias-free policing and equal protection in its hiring; unit assignment, as applicable; promotion; and performance assessment processes, including giving consideration to an individual’s record of bias-related violations, as well as using interviews or other methods to assess the individual’s ability to effectively practice bias-free policing.

Planning treatment it fears could normally harmless foreign substance that may make the information Treatment depends on the central nervous system confuses http://sildenafilcitratebest.com/ those harmless foreign substance! Harmful it s, response may come, with behavior and cough sore throat culture involves sending the? Most effective way that causes inflammation (sneezing) and following injury or she might recommend ECT other allergies cannot avoid. Fully review your, air ducts professionally cleaned and invade, other symptoms and or; delusions during manic episodes usually equals or scratched with our.

131. CDP will build upon and improve its Crisis Intervention Program with the goal of: (a) assisting individuals in crisis; (b) improving the safety of officers, consumers, family members, and others within the community; (c) providing the foundation necessary to promote community and statewide solutions to assist individuals with mental illness; and (d) reducing the need for individuals with mental illness to have further involvement with the criminal justice system. The Crisis Intervention Program will provide a forum for effective problem solving regarding the interaction between the criminal justice and mental health care system and create a context for sustainable change.

A. Mental Health Response Advisory Committee

132. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, CDP and the City will ensure that a Mental Health Response Advisory Committee (“Advisory Committee”) is developed to foster relationships and build support between the police, the community, and mental health providers and to help identify problems and develop solutions designed to improve outcomes for individuals in crisis.

133. The Advisory Committee will include the Crisis Intervention Coordinator and representation from specialized CIT officers. CDP also will seek representation from the Cleveland Municipal Court’s Mental Health Docket, the Ohio Criminal Justice Coordinating Center of Excellence. Cuyahoga County’s Alcohol, Drug Addiction, and Mental Health Services Board (“ADAMHS Board”), FrontLine Services, and any other relevant Cuyahoga County mental health organizations, such as advocacy organizations, homeless service providers, area hospitals, and interested community members.

134. The Advisory Committee will meet regularly and provide guidance to assist COP in improving, expanding, and sustaining its Crisis Intervention Program.

135. On an annual basis, the Advisory Committee will conduct an analysis of crisis intervention incidents to determine whether CDP has enough specialized CIT officers, whether it is deploying those officers effectively, and whether specialized CIT officers, call-takers, and dispatchers arc appropriately responding to people in crisis, and will recommend appropriate changes to policies, procedures, and training regarding police contact with individuals in crisis.

136. The Advisory Committee’s reports and recommendations will be provided to the Commission, will be publicly available, and will be posted on the City’s website.

B. Crisis Intervention Coordinator

137. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, CDP will designate an officer, at the rank of captain or above, to act as a Crisis Intervention Coordinator to better facilitate communication between CDP and members of the mental health community and to increase the effectiveness of CDP’s Crisis Intervention Program.

138. The Coordinator will develop and maintain partnerships with program stakeholders and serve as a point of contact for advocates, individuals, families, caregivers, professionals, and others associated with the mental health community. The Coordinator will be available as a resource at all times during normal business hours.

139. The Coordinator will participate in the Advisory Committee and on a regular basis solicit feedback from the mental health community and specialized CIT officers, calltakers, and dispatchers regarding the efficacy of CDP’s Crisis Intervention Program.

140. The Coordinator will be responsible for coordinating implementation of the changes and recommendations made by the Advisory Committee, as appropriate.

141. The Coordinator will be responsible for ensuring the selection of appropriate candidates for designation as specialized CIT officers. The Coordinator also will be required to ensure that officers, call-takers, and dispatchers are appropriately responding to CIT related calls.

142. The Coordinator will create ways to recognize and honor specialized CIT officers, calltakers, and dispatchers, where appropriate.

C. Crisis Intervention Training

143. CDP will provide training on responding to individuals in crisis to all of its officers and recruits. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, officers will be provided with at least eight hours of initial training, and all officers will receive annual in-service training thereafter. The initial and annual training will be adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope, and will include the circumstances in which a specialized CIT officer should be dispatched or consulted and how situations involving individuals in crisis should be addressed if a specialized CIT officer is not immediately available. All new recruits will receive at least 16 hours of training in the academy that meets these same requirements.

144. Within 365 days or the Effective Date, and annually thereafter, all CDP call-takers, dispatchers, and their supervisors will receive crisis intervention telecommunicators training that is adequate to enable them to identify, dispatch, and appropriately respond to calls for service that involve individuals in crisis. The training will include identification of individuals in crisis; telephonic suicide intervention; crisis management, de-escalation and scenario-based exercises; interactions with individuals with mental illness; information that should be gathered when the call-taker suspects that the call involves an individual in crisis; and the types of calls that require a specialized CIT response. Any crisis intervention training that already has been provided to call-takers, dispatchers, and their supervisors may be considered to fulfill training requirements under this Agreement for those individuals, if appropriate.

D. Specialized Crisis Intervention Trained Officers

145. CDP will provide enhanced specialized training in responding to individuals in crisis to certain officers (“specialized CIT officers”). Specialized CIT officers will continue to be assigned to the patrol division and will maintain their standard patrol duties, except when called upon to respond to incidents or calls involving individuals in crisis.

146. The enhanced training for specialized CIT officers will be at least 40 hours. This enhanced training will be adequate in quality, scope, and type and will include how to conduct a field evaluation, suicide intervention, community mental health resources, common mental health diagnoses, the effects of drug and alcohol abuse, perspectives of individuals with mental health issues, family members, the rights of persons with mental illness, civil commitment criteria, crisis de-escalation, and scenario-based exercises. This training must include on-site visitation to mental health and substance abuse facilities and interaction with individuals with mental illness and substance abuse disorders. Officers who are designated as specialized CIT officers who already have received 40 hours of appropriate crisis intervention training may be considered to have fulfilled these training requirements.

147. Specialized CIT officers do not have to receive the initial eight hours of training provided to all officers, but must receive eight hours of annual in-service crisis intervention training, which can be the same training provided to all officers, if appropriate.

148. Training and designation as a specialized CIT officer will be voluntary. To be eligible for consideration, officers must have at least three years of experience as a CDP officer.

CDP will provide an in-depth assessment of each applicant to determine the applicant’s fitness to serve as a specialized CIT officer. This assessment will include an examination of the officer’s written application, supervisory recommendations, disciplinary tile, and an in-person interview. Officers with a history of complaints of, or who have been disciplined for, excessive use of force against individuals in crisis will be presumptively ineligible to be specialized CIT officers.

149. Supervisors will identify and encourage qualified officers across all shifts and all Districts to serve as specialized CIT officers.

150. All Field Training Officers will receive the enhanced specialized crisis intervention training described in paragraph 146. Despite having received this training, an FTO will not be designated as a specialized CIT officer unl ess that FTO has volunteered to be a specialized CIT officer and has been selected by the Coordinator.

151. Specialized CIT officers who arc dispatched to an incident involving an individual in crisis will have primary responsibility for the scene. If a supervisor has assumed responsibility for the scene, the supervisor will seek the input of a specialized CIT officer regarding strategies for resolving the crisis where it is reasonable for them to do so.

152. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, the Coordinator will develop an effEctive specialized crisis intervention plan (“Specialized Crisis Intervention Plan”). The goal of the Specialized Crisis Intervention Plan will be to ensure that a specialized CIT officer is available to respond to all calls and incidents that appear to involve an individual in crisis. The Specialized Crisis Intervention Plan will include an assessment of the number of officers necessary to achieve this goal; identification of gaps in coverage of particular shifts or Districts and development of mechanisms to fill those gaps; identification of any barriers to ensuring full coverage and steps to overcome those barriers; and ways to identify qualified officers and to encourage them to apply.

CDP will continually review and revise this plan as barriers to full coverage are identified and addressed. The Specialized Crisis Intervention Plan will take into account the seniority provisions of the Collectively Bargaining Agreement and that CDP may not immediately be able to ensure that a specialized CIT officer is available to respond to all calls or incidents that appear to involve an individual in crisis. Within these constraints, the City will use its best efforts to ensure that a specialized CIT officer responds to all calls and incidents that appear to involve an individual in crisis.

The Monitor will assess the Specialized Crisis Intervention Plan and report to the Parties whether it is appropriate and effective, and whether the City is using its best efforts to implement it.

E. Crisis Intervention Policies and Procedures

153. The Ohio Criminal Justice Coordinating Center of Excellence currently is conducting a peer review of the crisis intervention program in Cuyahoga County. The results of the peer review assessment will be provided to the Advisory Committee, DOJ, and the Monitor. In developing its policies and procedures and the plan required by paragraph 152, the City will consider this assessment and any recommendations contained within it.

154. CDP, with recommendations from the Advisory Committee, will revise its policies to make clear that a crisis intervention response may be necessary even in situations where there has been an apparent law violation.

155. CDP, with recommendations from the Advisory Committee, will revise its current crisis intervention policy to ensure that specialized CIT officers have appropriate discretion to direct individuals with mental health and substance abuse issues to the health care system, rather than the judicial system, in those instances where it is appropriate to do so.

156. CDP’s policies and procedures will make clear that specialized CIT officers, when available, must be dispatched to all calls or incidents that appear to involve an individual in c1isis. CDP will track incidents in which a specialized officer was not dispatched to such calls. In developing and revising the plan required by paragraph 152, CDP will identify any barriers to ensuring that specialized CIT officers were dispatched to these calls, and will include steps to overcome these barriers.

157. CDP will track calls and incidents involving individuals in crisis by gathering, at a minimum, the following data:

a. date, time, and location of the incident;

b. subject’s name, age, gender, race, ethnicity, and address;

c. whether the subject was armed, and the type of weapon;

d. whether the subject is a United States military veteran;

e. name and address of individual calling for service;

f. the reason for the interaction, i.e., suspected criminal conduct or call for assistance;

g. name(s) and badge number(s) of the officer(s) on the scene;

h. whether a supervisor responded to the scene;

i. techniques or equipment officers used;

j. any injuries to officers, subject, or others;

k. disposition of the incident (e.g., defuse, arrest, citation, referral); and i. brief narrative of the event (only if not included in another document).

158. CDP must publicly report this outcome data annually and provide it to the Advisory Committee, aggregated as necessary to protect privacy.

159. CDP will utilize this outcome data to identify training needs and develop case studies and teaching scenarios for crisis intervention training as well as primary and in-service crisis training; to make changes to the crisis training curriculum; to identify safety issues and trends; to recognize and highlight successful individual officer performance; to develop new response strategies for repeat calls for service; and to identify systemic issues that impede CDP’s ability to provide an appropriate response to an incident involving an individual in crisis.

176. The City and CDP will ensure that all allegations of officer misconduct, whether internally discovered or alleged by a civilian, are fully, fairly, and efficiently investigated; that all investigative findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and documented in writing; and that all officers who commit misconduct are held accountable pursuant to a disciplinary system that is fair, consistent, and provides due process. To achieve these outcomes, CDP and the City will implement the requirements set out below.

A. Internally Discovered Misconduct

177. Internal Affairs will conduct objective, comprehensive, and timely investigations of all internal allegations of officer misconduct. All findings will be based on the preponderance of the evidence standard. This standard will be clearly delineated in policies, training, and procedures and accompanied by detailed examples to ensure proper application by investigators.

178. Internal Affairs will be headed by a qualified civilian who is not a current or former employee of CDP, and who is not a current or retired law enforcement officer. The civilian head of Internal Affairs will report directly to the Chief of Police.

l79. CDP will ensure that misconduct investigators and commanders possess excellent investigative skills, a reputation for integrity, the ability to write clear reports, and the ability to be fair and objective in determining whether an officer committed misconduct. Officers with a sustained history of civilian complaints of, or who have been disciplined for, excessive use of force, discrimination, or dishonesty will be presumptively ineligible for assignment to Internal Affairs.

180. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, CDP will provide all new personnel assigned to Internal Affairs with initial training and verify that all existing personnel received training within 365 days prior to the Effective Date that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type on conducting misconduct investigations. This training will include instruction in:

a. investigative skills, including proper interrogation and interview techniques; gathering and objectively analyzing evidence; and data and case management;

b. the particular challenges of administrative police misconduct investigations, including identifying alleged misconduct that is not clearly stated in the complaint or that becomes apparent during the investigation;

c. properly weighing the credibility of civilian witnesses against officers;

d. using objective evidence to resolve inconsistent statements;

e. the proper application of the preponderance of the evidence standard; and

f. CDP rules and policies, including the requirements of this Agreement, and protocols related to administrative investigations of alleged officer misconduct.

181. Internal Affairs investigators also will receive annual training related to conducting misconduct investigations that is adequate in quality, quantity, type and scope.

182. In each investigation, Internal Affairs will collect and consider all relevant circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence, including officer-recorded video as it becomes available through CDP’s implementation of body worn cameras or other recording devices. There will be no automatic preference for an officer’s statement over a non-officer’s statement. Internal Affairs investigators will not disregard a witness’s statement solely because the witness has some connection to either the complainant or the officer or because the witness or complainant has a criminal history.

In conducting the investigation, Internal Affairs investigators may take into account the record of any witness, complainant, or officer who has been determined to have been deceptive or untruthful in any legal proceeding, misconduct investigation, or other investigation. Internal Affairs investigators will make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements.

183. Internal Affairs will evaluate all relevant police activity and any evidence of potential misconduct uncovered during the course of the investigation, including each use of force, and any investigatory stops, searches, or seizures that occurred during the incident.

184. If the person involved in the encounter with the police pleads guilty or is found guilty of an offense, Internal Affairs will not consider that information alone to be determinative of whether a CDP officer engaged in misconduct, nor will it justify discontinuing the investigation.

185. Internal Affairs will complete its administrative investigations within 30 days from the date it learns of the alleged misconduct. Any request for an extension of time must be approved in writing by the Chief or the Chiefs designee.

186. At the conclusion of each investigation, Internal Affairs will prepare an investigation report. The report will include:

a. a narrative description of the incident, including a precise description of the evidence that either justifies or fails to justify the officer’s conduct based on Internal Affairs’ independent review of the facts and circumstances of the incident;

b. documentation of all evidence that was gathered, including names, phone numbers, and addresses of witnesses to the incident. In situations in which there are no known witnesses, the report will specifically state this fact. In situations in which witnesses were present but circumstances prevented the author of the report from determining the identification, phone number, or address of those witnesses, the report will state the reasons why. The report also will include all available identifying information for anyone who refuses to provide a statement;

c. documentation of whether officers were interviewed, and a transcript or recording of those interviews;

d. the names of all other CDP employees who witnessed the incident; e. Internal Affairs’ evaluation of the incident, based on its review of the evidence gathered, including a determination of whether the officer’s actions appear to be within CDP policy, procedure, regulations, orders, or other standards of conduct required of City employees; and an assessment of the incident for policy, training, tactical, or equipment concerns; f. if a weapon was used, documentation that the officer’s certification and training for the weapon were current; and

g. documentation of recommendations for initiation of the disciplinary process.

187. In addition to determining whether an officer committed alleged misconduct, investigations will include an assessment of whether:

a. the police action was in compliance w1th training and legal standards;

b. the use of different tactics should or could have been employed;

c. the incident indicates a need for additional training, counseling, or other nondisciplinary corrective actions; and

d. the incident suggests that CDP should revise its policies, strategics, tactics, or training.

188. CDP will ensure that all relevant information from the completed investigation is provided electronically to the officers’ supervisors, the Training Review Committee, the Force Review Board, the Officer Intervention Program, and the Data Collection and Analysis Coordinator while ensuring that sensitive information is adequately protected.

B. Reporting Misconduct and Preventing Retaliation

189. CDP will require any CDP employee who observes or becomes aware of any act of misconduct by another employee to report the incident to a supervisor or directly to Internal Affairs. Where an act of misconduct is reported to a supervisor, the supervisor will immediately document and report the information to Internal Affairs. Failure to report an act of misconduct is an egregious offense and will subject the officer to the disciplinary process and, if sustained, will subject the officer to discipline, up to and including termination.

190. CDP will develop a system that allows officers to confidentially and anonymously report potential misconduct by other officers.

l91. CDP will expressly prohibit all forms of retaliation, discouragement, intimidation, coercion, or adverse action, against any person, civilian or officer, who reports misconduct, makes a misconduct complaint, or cooperates with an investigation of misconduct.

192. Officers who retaliate against any person who reports or investigates alleged misconduct will be subject to the disciplinary process and possible discipline, up to and including termination.

C. Investigation of Civilian Complaints

1. The Office of Professional Standards

193. The Office of Professional Standards (“OPS”) will investigate all civilian complaints it receives, other than those that allege criminal conduct. All complaints of apparent criminal conduct will be referred to Internal Affairs. Complaints of excessive force will be retained by OPS for investigation except in exceptional circumstances, or if Internal Affairs already has initiated an investigation. Once Internal Affairs completes a referred criminal investigation, if a determination is made that no criminal conduct occurred, the complaint will be referred back to OPS and the Police Review Board (“PRB”) for disposition.

194. The City will ensure that OP is led by an administrator with the skills, expertise, and experience to effectively manage the intake, tracking, timely, and objective investigation of complaints; identify and implement appropriate training for investigators and PRB members from sources outside of CDP; assess OPS’s equipment and staffing needs, including administrative staff, investigators, and supervisor(s); and ensure that OPS operates in a manner that is transparent and accountable to the community it serves. The administrator also will have the skills, expertise, and experience to develop and implement performance standards for OPS. For future appointments, the City will seek the Commission’s input in developing the minimum qualifications and experience for an administrator.

195. OPS investigators will receive initial training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type and will include:

a. investigative skills, including proper interrogation and interview techniques; gathering and objectively analyzing evidence; and data and case management;

b. the particular challenges of administrative investigations of police conduct, including identifying conduct warranting investigation that is not clearly stated in the complaint or that becomes apparent during the investigation;

c. properly weighing the credibility of civilian witnesses against officers;

d. using objective evidence to resolve inconsistent statements;

e. the proper application of the preponderance of the evidence standard; and

f. CDP rules and policies, including the requirements of this Agreement, and protocols related to administrative investigations of officer conduct alleged to be improper.

196. The training will be provided by sources both inside and outside of CDP, in order to ensure the highest quality training on investigative techniques and CDP policies, procedures, and disciplinary rules. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, OPS investigators will receive training that is adequate in quality, quantity, type, and scope, both initially and annually, in how to conduct administrative investigations.

197. OPS Investigators will not be current members of the CDP, and no CDP personnel will have any active role in OPS’s operations.

198. The City will ensure that the lawyer representing OPS does not have any actual or apparent conflicts of interest.

199. OPS will have its own budget, separate from the administrative budget for the Department of Public Safety. The OPS Administrator will oversee the budget. The Monitor will analyze OPS’s budget and advise the Parties and the Court as to whether it affords sufficient independence and resources, including sufficient staff and training to meet the terms of this Agreement.

200. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, OPS will develop a revised operations manual that will be made available to the public. The manual will, at a minimum, include the following:

a. a mission statement that defines OPS and PRB’s core values, mission, and authority;

b. definitions of all relevant terms;

c. investigative procedures, including procedures for objective fact-gathering and evaluation and the factors that will be considered when evaluating credibility; procedures on report writing; and procedures for collecting and processing evidence;

d. procedures outlining when complaints may be administratively dismissed and the process with which OPS must comply to ensure that complaints are not prematurely or unnecessarily dismissed;

e. outlines the duties and practices of PRB, including how PRB will review OPS findings, how cases will be presented to PRB by OPS, the standard of review PRB will apply to reviewing complaints, how disciplinary recommendations will be determined, and a description of the types of information PRB will make available to the public; and

f. an explanation of possible dispositions and outcomes of complaints.

2. Filing and Tracking of Civilian Complaints

201. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, the City and CDP, in consultation with the Commission and OPS, will develop and implement a program to promote awareness throughout the Cleveland community about the process for filing complaints with OPS.

202. CDP and the City will work with the police unions, as necessary, to allow civilian complaints to be submitted to OPS verbally or in writing; in person, by phone, or on line; by a complainant, someone acting on his or her behalf, or anonymously; and with or without a signature from the complainant. All complaints will be documented in writing.

203. CDP will post and maintain by the intake window at CDP headquarters and all District headquarters a pennanent placard describing the civilian complaint process that includes relevant OPS contact information. including telephone numbers, email addresses, and Internet sites.

204. Within 365 days of the Effective Date, CDP will provide training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type to all police personnel, including dispatchers, to properly handle complaint intake, including how to provide complaint materials and information; the consequences for failing to take complaints; and strategies for turning the complaint process into a positive police-civilian interaction.

205. CDP will require all offi cers to carry complaint forms in their CDP vehicles. Officers will provide complaint forms to individuals upon request. Officers will provide their name and badge number upon request. If an individual indicates to an officer that he or she would like to make a complaint about that officer, the officer will immediately inform his or her supervisor who will respond to the scene to assist the individual in filing a complaint. The supervisor will provide the individual a copy of the completed complaint form or a blank form to be completed later by the individual.

206. The City and OPS will make complaint forms and other materials outlining the complaint process and OPS’s contact information widely available at locations including: the websites of CDP, OPS and the City of Cleveland; the lobby of OPS’s building; CDP headquarters and Districts; and City Hall. OPS will ask locations such as public library branches and the offices and gathering places of community groups to make these materials available.

207. OPS’s complaint form will not contain any language that could reasonably be construed as discouraging the filing of a complaint, including warnings about the potential criminal consequences for filing false complaints.

208. Within 180 days of the Effective Date, complaint forms and related informational materials wi ll be made available, at a minimum, in English and Spanish. OPS will make every effort to ensure that complainants who speak other languages (including sign language) and have limited English proficiency can file complaints in their preferred language. The fact that a complainant does not speak, read, or write English, or is deaf or hard of hearing will not be grounds to decline to accept or investigate a complaint.

209. The City will ensure that civilian complaints submitted through other existing systems, including the Mayor’s Action Center and the Department Action Center, are immediately forwarded to OPS for investigation.

210. Within 150 days of the Effective Date, OPS will establish a centralized electronic numbering and tracking system for all complaints. Upon receipt of a complaint, OPS will promptly assign a unique identifier to the complaint, which will be provided to the complainant at the time the complaint is made. OPS’s centralized numbering and tracking system will maintain accurate and reliable data regarding the number, nature, and status of all complaints, from initial intake to final disposition, including investigation timeliness and notification to the complainant of the interim status and final disposition of the complaint. The system will be used to determine the status of complaints, as well as for periodic assessment of compliance with relevant OPS policies and procedures and this Agreement, including requirements of timeliness of investigations. The system also will be used to monitor and maintain appropriate caseloads for OPS investigators.

211. OPS will track, as a separate category of complaints, allegations of biased policing, including allegations that an officer conducted an investigatory stop or arrest based on an individual’s demographic category or used a slur based on an individual’s demographic category. OPS will require that complaints of biased policing are captured and tracked appropriately, even if the complainant does not so label the allegation.

212. OPS will track, as a separate category of complaints, allegations of unlawful investigatory stops, searches, or arrests.

213. OPS will track, as a separate category of complaints, all allegations of excessive use of force received through OPS’s intake process.

214. OPS will conduct regular assessments of the types of complaints being received to identify and assess potential problematic patterns and trends.

215. OPS will produce, at least annually, a public report summarizing complaint trends, including the number and types of complaints received, the disposition of complaints by complaint type, the number and types of complaints administratively dismissed, and the average length of complaint investigations.

3. Classification of Civilian Complaints

216. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, OPS will determine criteria for assigning complaints to one of two tracks: standard and complex. Investigation of complaints assigned to the standard track will be completed within 45 days. Investigation of complaints assigned to the complex track will be completed within 90 days during the first 6 months following the Effective Date and within 75 days thereafter. OPS will undertake a staffing analysis to determine how many investigators are required to meet these targets and, if necessary, the City will use best efforts to expand OPS staff in accordance with the results of the analysis. The staffing analysis will be provided to the Monitor, which will review it for adequacy. The Monitor will advise the Parties as to whether OPS and PRB’s budget affords sufficient independence and resources to meet the terms of this Agreement, and whether the City is using best efforts to expand its staff, if indicated by the analysis. The Monitor will include this assessment in its reports.

217. OPS will not terminate an investigation simply because the complainant seeks to withdraw the complaint or is unavailable, unwilling, or unable to cooperate with an investigation. OPS will continue the investigation and reach a finding, where possible, based on the evidence and investigatory procedures and techniques available. In its annual report, OPS will include the number and types of complaints administratively dismissed and the reasons for closure. Only the following types of complaints may be assigned the disposition of administratively dismissed:

a. complaints disputing traffic citations, except that allegations of improper conduct contained in such complaints (e.g., racial profiling, illegal search, excessive force) will be classified and investigated according to their merits;

b. complaints alleging a delay in police services where the preliminary investigation demonstrates that the delay was due to workload, or otherwise unavoidable;

c. complaints regarding off duty officer conduct of a civil nature, unless the alleged conduct, or its effects, constitute misconduct or have a substantial nexus to the officer’s City employment; and

d. complaints in which the preliminary investigation demonstrates that the officer does not work for CDP, or where the identity of the officer cannot be determined despite the best efforts of OPS.

4. Investigation of Civilian Complaints

218. OPS will ensure that investigations of complaints are as thorough as necessary to reach reliable and complete findings that are supported by the preponderance of the evidence.

219. CDP will ensure that OPS has timely access to all reports related to the incident, including incident reports, supervisory investigations, completed Internal Affairs’ investigations, and Force Review Board reports. If an investigation already is being or has been conducted by CDP and the OPS Administrator determines that it was thorough and complete, no additional investigation will be required. However, OPS has the authority to conduct additional investigation of any civilian complaint.

220. OPS investigators will attempt to interview each complainant in person, and where appropriate, this interview will be recorded in its entirety, absent a specific, documented objection by the complainant.

221. The Chief will order officers who witnessed or participated in an incident that is the subject of an OPS complaint to cooperate with the OPS investigation, including by responding to written questions submitted by OPS or in-person interviews, as request by OPS.

222. OPS investigators will have access to any relevant disciplinary information in the record of an officer who is the subject of a current investigation.

223. In each investigation, OPS will consider all relevant evidence, including circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence. There will be no automatic preference for an officer’s statement over a non-officer’s statement. OPS will not disregard a witness’s statement solely because the witness has some connection to either the complainant or the officer or because the witness or complainant has a criminal history. OPS will make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements.

224. At the conclusion of its investigation, OPS will explain its findings using one of the following categories:

a. Sustained: the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the violation of policy occurred. A complaint may be “sustained in part” if the investigation revealed sufficient evidence to support a finding of a policy violation on one or more, but not all of the complainant’s allegations. A complaint may also be “sustained for a violation not based on original complaint” if the investigation reveals evidence of misconduct that was not included in the complainant’s original allegation.

b. Exonerated: the preponderance of the evidence fails to establish a finding of a policy violation and does not wanant any further investigation or action.

c. Unfounded: the preponderance of the evidence fails to establish whether a policy violation occuned or did not occur.

d. Not Sustained: the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the alleged conduct did occur, but did not violate CDP policies, procedures, or training.

e. Administratively dismissed.

225. OPS will document in writing the investigation of each complaint, including all investigatory steps taken, and OPS’s findings and conclusions. The recommended findings will be supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

226. In addition to determining whether an officer committed the conduct alleged in the complaint and whether it violated policy, OPS may consider whether: (a) the police action was in compliance with training and legal standards; (b) the incident indicates a need for additional training, counseling, or other collective measures; and (c) the incident suggests that CDP should revise its policies, strategies, tactics, or training. OPS may include recommendations on these topics in its investigation.

227. OPS will forward all investigations and its written conclusions to PRB in sufficient time for PRB to consider them no later than the second regularly scheduled PRB meeting following completion or the investigation.

5. Communication with the Complainant

228. OPS will send periodic written updates to the complainant including:

a. within seven days of receipt of a complaint, OPS will send non-anonymous complainants a written notice of receipt, including the tracking number assigned to the complaint. The notice will inform the complainant how s/he may contact OPS to inquire about the status of a complaint.

b. when OPS concludes its investigation, OPS will notify the complainant that the investigation has been concluded and forwarded to PRB, and inform the complainant when PRB will hear the complaint.

c. when PRB reaches a determination, OPS will notify the complainant of PRB’s determination and inform the complainant that the case will be forwarded to the Chief of Police or Director of Public Safety for review and/or disciplinary action; and

d. when the Chief or Director of Public Safety reports the final outcome of his/her disciplinary process, OPS will notify the complainant of the result, and inform him/her that the matter is now concluded.

229. Notwithstanding the above notices, a complainant may contact OPS at any time to determine the status of his/her complaint.

D. Police Review Board

230. Within 120 days of the Effective Date, in consultation with the Commission, the Mayor will work with the City Council to develop an ordinance to place a Charter Amendment on the ballot that would ensure that the members of PRB are appointed in a transparent manner, are representative of the diverse communities within Cleveland, and allow the chair and a vice chair of PRB, to each serve for a term of one year, to be selected from among the members by majority vote of PRB’s membership.

231. PRB members will not be current or former members of the CDP.

232. PRB will have its own budget, separate from the administrative budget for the Department of Public Safety. The OPS Administrator will oversee the budget. The Monitor will analyze PRB’s budget and advise the Parties and the Court as to whether it affords sufficient independence and resources, including sufficient staff and training to meet the terms of this Agreement.

233. PRB members will receive initial training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type and will include:

a. constitutional and other relevant law on police-citizen encounters, including law on the use of force and stops, searches, and arrests;

b. police tactics;

c. investigations of police conduct;

d. bias-free policing;

e. policing individuals in crisis;

f. CDP policies, procedures and disciplinary rules; and

g. community outreach.

234. The training will be provided by sources both inside and outside of CDP, in order to ensure the highest quality training on investigative techniques, and CDP policies, procedures, and disciplinary rules.

235. PRB’s meetings will be open to the public. The schedule and location of meetings will be designed to ensure easy public access and will be posted on OPS’s website, as will agendas for upcoming PRB meetings. PRB members may vote to go into executive session for their deliberations, but case presentations and PRB votes will take place in open session.

236. OPS investigators will attend PRB meetings at which their investigations are being considered and present their investigation, findings, and conclusions to PRB, whose members can direct questions about cases to them. If PRB determines that it needs additional information before considering a matter, it may ask the investigator to conduct further investigation.

237. PRB’s recommended dispositions will be based on a preponderance of the evidence.

For each case, PRB shall set forth its conclusion and an explanation of its reasons and supporting evidence in writing including, when applicable, the justification for departing from OPS’s recommended disposition.

238. In cases where PRB is recommending a sustained disposition, in whole or in part, PRB will include a recommendation as to disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective action.

239. PRB will forward all of its recommendations regarding dispositions and discipline to the Chief of Police or Director of Public Safety for their review. PRB may include an assessment of whether: (a) the police action was in compliance with training and legal standards; (b) the incident indicates a need for additional training, counseling, or other corrective measures; and (c) the incident suggests that CDP should revise its policies, strategics, tactics, or training.

E. Disciplinary Hearings

240. The Chief of CDP will issue a General Police Order that requires officers to: (a) cooperate with the Internal Affairs and OPS investigators; and (b) submit all relevant evidence to the investigators such that it is available for consideration by Internal Affairs or PRB.

241. Where PRB or Internal Affairs recommends the initiation of the disciplinary process, the Chief of CDP, or his/her designee. or the Director of Public Safety will conduct a disciplinary hearing and will provide the officer with an opportunity to testify. If an officer provides new or additional evidence at the hearing, the hearing will be suspended and the matter will be returned to internal Affairs or PRB for consideration, as appropriate.

242. If PRB recommends the initiation of the disciplinary process and recommends a disciplinary level, and the Chief or the Director of Public Safety does not uphold the charges in whole or in part after the hearing. or docs not impose the recommended discipline or non-disciplinary corrective action, the Chief or the Director will set forth in writing his or her justification for doing so.

243. CDP will track the number of instances in which the Chief or the Director of Public Safety rejects, in whole or in part, PRB’s recommended disposition.

244. At least annually, the Monitor will review this data and assess whether PRB is achieving its mission.

F. Discipline

245. CDP will ensure that discipline for sustained allegations of misconduct comports with due process, and is consistently applied, fair, and based on the nature of the allegation, and that mitigating and aggravating factors are identified and consistently applied and documented.

246. In order to ensure consistency in the imposition of discipline, CDP will review its current disciplinary matrix and will seek to amend it as necessary to ensure that it:

a. establishes a presumptive range of discipline for each type of rule violation;

b. increases the presumptive discipline based on an officer’s prior violations of the same or other rules;

c. sets out defined mitigating and aggravating factors;

d. prohibits consideration of the officer’s race, gender, national origin, age, ethnicity, familial relationships, or sexual orientation;

e. prohibits consideration of the high (or low) profile nature of the incident;

f. provides that CDP will not take only non-disciplinary corrective action in cases in which the disciplinary matrix calls for the imposition of discipline; and

g. provides that CDP will consider whether non-disciplinary corrective action also is appropriate in a case where discipline has been imposed.

247. All disciplinary decisions will be documented in writing.

248. If amended, CDP will provide its disciplinary matrix to the Commission, the Police Inspector General, and the police unions for comment.

249. CDP will work with the unions to allow for sustained disciplinary findings to stay in an officer’s record for ten years.