1

2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

3

4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. )

5 Washington, DC 20530,

)

)

6

Plaintiff,

)

)

7 v.

)

)

8 PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY,

)

MARYLAND, 14741 Governor Oden )

9 Bowie Drive, Suite 5121,

)

Upper Marlboro, MD 20772,

)

10 and the PRINCE GEORGE’S

)

COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT,

)

11 7600 Barlowe Road,

)

Palmer Park, MD 20785

)

12

Defendants.

)

______________________________)

13 //

14

C.A. No. COMPLAINT

15

INTRODUCTION

16

1. The United States brings this action under 42 U.S.C.

17 § 14141 to remedy a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement

18 officers of the Canine Section of the Prince George’s County Police

19 Department (PGPD Canine Section) that deprives persons of rights,

20 privileges, and immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or

21 laws of the United States. The Defendants, through their acts and

22 omissions, are engaging in a pattern or practice of conduct by PGPD

23 Canine Section officers of subjecting individuals to uses of excessive

24 force. The Defendants have failed to adequately train, supervise, and

25 monitor officers; to investigate, review and evaluate use of force

26 incidents; to investigate alleged misconduct, and discipline officers

27 who are guilty of misconduct; and to implement effective systems to

28 ensure that management controls adopted by the Prince George’s County

1 Police Department are properly carried out. Accordingly, the United

2 States seeks a judgment granting injunctive and declaratory relief for

3 the Defendants’ violations of law.

4

The United States of America alleges:

5

DEFENDANTS

6

2. The Defendant Prince George’s County (“County”) is a

7 chartered governmental corporation in the State of Maryland.

8

3. The Defendant Prince George’s County Police Department

9 (“PGPD”) is a law enforcement agency operated by the County.

10

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11

4. This Court has jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C.

12 §§ 1331 and 1345.

13

5. The United States is authorized to initiate this action

14 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 14141.

15

6. Venue is proper in the District of Maryland pursuant to

16 28 U.S.C. § 1391, as the Defendants reside in and the claims arose in

17 the District of Maryland.

18

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

19

7. The Defendants, through their acts or omissions, have

20 engaged in and continue to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct

21 by PGPD Canine Section officers of using excessive force against

22 persons in Prince George’s County.

23

8. The Defendants are, through their acts or omissions,

24 engaging in a pattern or practice of systemic deficiencies that has

25 resulted in a pattern or practice of conduct by PGPD Canine Section

26 officers that deprives persons of rights, privileges, and immunities

27

28

- 2 -


1 secured or protected by the U.S. Constitution or the laws of the

2 United States as described in paragraph 7 above. These systemic

3 deficiencies include, but are not limited to:

4

a. failing to implement policies, procedures, and

5

practices regarding use of force that appropriately

6

guide and monitor the actions of individual PGPD Canine

7

Section officers;

8

b. failing to train PGPD Canine Section officers

9

adequately to prevent the occurrence of misconduct;

10

c. failing to supervise PGPD Canine Section officers

11

adequately to prevent the occurrence of misconduct;

12

d. failing to monitor adequately PGPD Canine Section

13

officers who engage in or may be likely to engage in

14

misconduct;

15

e. failing to implement policies and procedures whereby

16

complaints and other allegations of PGPD Canine Section

17

officer misconduct are adequately received and

18

investigated;

19

f. failing to investigate adequately incidents in which a

20

PGPD Canine Section officer uses force;

21

g. failing to adjudicate or review citizen complaints, and

22

incidents in which a PGPD Canine Section officer uses

23

force, fairly and adequately; and

24

h. failing to discipline adequately PGPD Canine Section

25

officers who engage in misconduct.

26

27

28

- 3 -


1

CAUSE OF ACTION


2

9. Through the actions described in paragraphs 7-8 above, the

3 Defendants have engaged in and continue to engage in a pattern or

4 practice of conduct by PGPD Canine Section officers that deprives

5 persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by

6 the Constitution (including the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments) or

7 the laws of the United States, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 14141.

8

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

9

10. The Attorney General is authorized under 42 U.S.C. § 14141

10 to seek declaratory and equitable relief to eliminate a pattern or

11 practice of law enforcement officer conduct that deprives persons of

12 rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the

13 Constitution or laws of the United States.

14

WHEREFORE, the United States prays that the Court:

15

a. declare that Defendants have engaged in a pattern or practice

16 of conduct by PGPD Canine Section officers that deprives persons of

17 rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the

18 Constitution or laws of the United States, as described in paragraphs

19 7-8 above;

20

b. order the Defendants, their officers, agents, and employees

21 to refrain from engaging in any of the predicate acts forming the

22 basis of the pattern or practice of conduct as described in paragraphs

23 7-8 above;

24

c. order the Defendants, their officers, agents, and employees

25 to adopt and implement policies and procedures to remedy the pattern

26 or practice of conduct described in paragraphs 7-8 above, and to

27

28

- 4 -


1 prevent PGPD Canine Section officers from depriving persons of rights,

2 privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or

3 laws of the United States; and

4

d. order such other appropriate relief as the interests of

5 justice may require.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -


1 2 3 4 5
THOMAS M. DIBIAGIO 6 United States Attorney
604 U.S. Courthouse 7 101 W. Lombard Street
Baltimore, Md. 21201 8 (410) 209-4800 (telephone)
(410) 962-2310 (facsimile) 9 Bar Number: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 DATE:
 27 28

-6-


Respectfully submitted, JOHN ASHCROFT Attorney General
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
BRADLEY J. SCHLOZMAN Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
SHANETTA Y. CUTLAR Chief Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division
SANDHYA L. SUBRAMANIAN Special Counsel Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division
GREGORY GONZALEZ Trial Attorney Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305-2941 (telephone) (202) 514-0212 (facsimile)

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE


2

I certify that a copy of the United States’ Complaint was served

by facsimile and regular mail on January 22, 2004, on the following:

3

David S. Whitacre

4

County Attorney

County Administration Building, Room 5121

5

14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive

Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-3050

6

301-952-4190

7

8

9 ____________________________

10

GREGORY GONZALEZ

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 -

 
 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT Between the United States Department of Justice
and Prince George’s County, Maryland and The Prince George’s County Police Department
January 22, 2004

I. INTRODUCTION

1


A. Background

1


B. General Provisions

1


C. Definitions

4


II. GENERAL POLICY ON RESPONDING TO INCIDENTS INVOLVING


MENTALLY ILL PERSONS

6


III. USE OF FORCE POLICIES

6


A. General Use of Force Policies

6


B. Oleoresin Capsicum (OC)

7


IV. EVALUATION, DOCUMENTATION, AND REVIEW OF USES OF FORCE 8


A. General Use of Force Incidents

8


B. Critical Firearms Discharges and Creation of Firearm Discharge Review Board 10


V. TRAINING

11


A. Management Oversight

11


B. Curriculum

12


C. FTOs

14


VI. RECEIPT, INVESTIGATION, AND REVIEW OF 


MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS

14


A. Public Information

14


B. Filing and Tracking Complaints

15


C. Investigation of Complaints

16


VII. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION

18


A. Early Identification System

18


B. Oversight

22


C. Use of Video Cameras

23


VIII. MONITORING, REPORTING, AND IMPLEMENTATION

24


A. Independent Monitor

24


B. Independent Monitor Reports

28


C. County Reports and Records

29


D. Implementation

29


Prince George’s County Police Department Memorandum of Agreement
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
1. In July 1999, the Department of Justice initiated an investigation of alleged misconduct by the Canine Section of the Prince George’s County Police Department. In October 2000, the Department of Justice initiated an investigation of an alleged pattern or practice of excessive force throughout the Prince George’s County Police Department. Both investigations were commenced pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141, and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3789d. Upon assuming office, County Executive Jack B. Johnson sought to resolve the issues regarding the two Department of Justice investigations. The County Executive met with Department of Justice officials to facilitate Prince George’s County’s cooperation with the Department of Justice investigations and craft agreements addressing all the parties’ concerns. This Agreement, along with the separate Consent Decree regarding the Canine Section investigation, is the result of a cooperative effort which evinces a commitment to constitutional policing on the part of the Department of Justice; Prince George’s County, Maryland; and the Prince George’s County Police Department.
B. General Provisions
2. The United States and Prince George’s County, a chartered governmental corporation in the State of Maryland, share a mutual interest in promoting effective and respectful policing. They join together in entering this Agreement in order to promote police integrity and prevent conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
3. This Agreement is effectuated pursuant to the authority granted the Department of Justice under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 (“Section 14141”), to seek declaratory or equitable relief
1


to remedy a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives individuals of rights, privileges or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
4. Nothing in this Agreement or the negotiation process shall be construed as an admission or evidence of liability under any federal, state or local law.
5. Neither Prince George’s County’s entry into this Agreement nor its decision to implement changes to Prince George’s County Police Department policies and procedures is an admission by Prince George’s County, the Prince George’s County Police Department, or any officer or employee of either, that any of them has engaged in any unconstitutional, illegal or otherwise improper activity or conduct, which Prince George’s County and the Prince George’s County Police Department specifically deny. The Department of Justice has conducted an investigation pursuant to Section 14141 into the Prince George’s County Police Department’s use of force and related management practices. At the close of the investigation, the Department of Justice determined that the jurisdictional requirements of the statute were sufficiently satisfied to permit the parties to enter into this Agreement. As a result of Prince George’s County’s and the Prince George’s County Police Department’s high level of voluntary cooperation and the parties’ shared goals and willingness to implement meaningful change without need for litigation, the Department of Justice believes this Agreement, rather than contested litigation, represents the best opportunity to address the Department of Justice’s concerns regarding the Prince George’s County Police Department’s use of force and accountability practices.
6. The parties enter into this settlement jointly for the purpose of avoiding the burdens of litigation, and to support vigorous and constitutional law enforcement. Moreover, joint entry of this Agreement is in the public interest since it provides for expeditious remedial activity, promotes the use of the best available policing practices and procedures, and avoids the diversion of federal and Prince George’s County resources to adversarial actions by the parties.
7. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to alter the lawful authority of Prince George’s County Police Department officers to use force, effect arrests and file charges, or
2


otherwise fulfill their law enforcement obligations in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Constitutions and laws of the United States and the State of Maryland, including the Maryland Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (“LEOBR”), Md. Code Ann., Public Safety §§ 3-101 to 113 (2003).
8. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to: (a) alter the existing collective bargaining agreements between the County (as defined in paragraph 17 infra) and Police Department employee bargaining units; or (b) impair the collective bargaining rights of employees in those units under state and local law. The parties acknowledge that the County’s implementation of this Agreement may require compliance with the consulting process. The County shall comply with any such requirement under its collective bargaining agreements and shall do so with a goal of concluding any such processes in a manner that will permit the County’s timely implementation of this Agreement. The County shall give appropriate notice of this Agreement to affected employee bargaining units to allow such processes to begin as to the affected provisions of this Agreement. The County agrees to consult with the United States in regard to the positions it takes in any consulting processes connected with this Agreement.
9. This Agreement shall constitute the entire integrated agreement of the parties. No prior drafts or prior or contemporaneous communications, oral or written, shall be relevant or admissible for purposes of determining the meaning of any provisions herein in any litigation or any other proceeding.
10. This Agreement is binding upon the parties hereto, by and through their officials, agents, employees, and successors. This Agreement is enforceable only by the parties. No person or entity is intended to be a third-party beneficiary of the provisions of this Agreement for purposes of any civil, criminal, or administrative action, and accordingly, no person or entity may assert any claim or right as a beneficiary or protected class under this Agreement. This Agreement is not intended to impair or expand the right of any person or organization to seek relief against Prince George’s County, the Prince George’s County Police Department, or any officer or employee of either, for their conduct or the conduct of Police Department officers; accordingly, it does not alter legal standards governing any such claims. This Agreement does not authorize, nor shall
3


it be construed to authorize, access to any Prince George’s County or Police Department documents, except as expressly provided by this Agreement, by persons or entities other than the United States, Prince George’s County, the Prince George’s County Police Department and the Monitor.
11. The County agrees to provide necessary support, including financial resources, to the Police Department and the Chief of Police to enable each of them to fulfill their obligations under this Agreement.
12. Prince George’s County and the Police Department affirm their commitment to their oath of office to support the Constitution of the United States and the State of Maryland. Prince George’s County, by and through its officials, agents, employees, and successors, agrees not to engage in any activity that would constitute a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. This paragraph does not apply to the Prince George’s County employment policies, practices, or procedures.
C. Definitions
13. The term “actively resisting” means the subject is making physically evasive movements to defeat the officer’s attempt at control, including bracing, tensing, pushing, or verbally signaling an intention not to be taken into or retained in custody, provided that the intent to resist has been clearly manifested.
14. The term “BPR” means the Bureau of Professional Responsibility.
15. The term “CCOP” means the Prince George’s County Civilian Complaint Oversight Panel.
16. The term “CID” means the Criminal Investigative Division.
17. The term “County” means Prince George’s County, Maryland.
18. The term “critical firearm discharge” means each discharge of a firearm by a PGPD officer with the exception of range and training firings and discharges at animals.
19. The term “deadly force” means any use of force likely to cause death or serious physical injury, including, but not
4


limited to, the use of a firearm.
20. The term “discipline” means a written reprimand, suspension, demotion, dismissal, loss of leave, or imposition of a fine.
21. The term “DOJ” means the United States Department of Justice and its agents and employees.
22. The term “EIS” means the Early Identification System.
23. The term “force” means any physical coercion used to effect, influence or persuade an individual to comply with an order from an officer. The term shall not include ordinary, unresisted handcuffing. The term shall include the use of chemical irritant and the deployment of a canine.
24. The term “FTO” means a field training officer.
25. The term “including” means “including, but not limited to.”
26. The term “LEOBR” means the Maryland Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights, Md. Code Ann., Public Safety §§ 3101 to -113 (2003).
27. The term “less lethal force” means any use of force that is neither likely nor intended to cause death or serious physical injury.
28. The term “Monitor” means a person or team of people who shall be selected, pursuant to paragraph 91, to monitor and report on the County’s implementation of this Agreement.
29. The term “non-disciplinary corrective action” refers to action other than discipline taken by a PGPD supervisor to enable or encourage an officer to modify or improve his or her performance.
30. The term “PGPD” means the Prince George’s County Police Department.
31. The term “police officer” or “officer” means any law enforcement officer employed by PGPD, including supervisors.
32. The term “supervisor” means a sworn PGPD employee at the rank of sergeant or above (or anyone acting in those capacities) and non-sworn personnel with oversight responsibility for other officers.
5


II. GENERAL POLICY ON RESPONDING TO INCIDENTS INVOLVING MENTALLY ILL PERSONS
33. In all appropriate cases involving a mentally ill person, the responding officer will file a request for an Emergency Petition for an In-Patient Evaluation. The PGPD will continue employment of its mental health care professionals that makes such professionals available to assist the PGPD with on site interactions with persons who are mentally ill. The PGPD agrees to continue to provide forty hours training on crisis intervention and dealing with mentally disordered individuals as part of its police academy recruit curriculum. Within six months from the date of this Agreement, the PGPD will supplement its current police mobile-based crisis team. This team will, at a minimum, consist of personnel who are highly motivated and attend annual in-service training by mental health professionals to improve their conflict resolution and situational deescalation techniques. The PGPD will make best efforts to secure the voluntary services of team members who are also sworn police officers. Members of this team will be available to respond to assist patrol officers deal with mentally ill subjects. The team shall have primary responsibility in dealing with the situation, unless there is a need for quick action.
III. USE OF FORCE POLICIES
A. General Use of Force Policies
34. The PGPD will review and revise its use of force policies as necessary to:
a. define terms clearly; b. define force as that term is defined in this Agreement; c. incorporate a use of force model that teaches
disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements or calling in specialized units as appropriate responses to a situation; d. advise that, whenever possible, individuals should be allowed to submit to arrest before force is used; e. reinforce that the use of excessive force will subject officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and/or civil liability; f. ensure that sufficient less lethal alternatives are available to all patrol officers; and
6


g. explicitly prohibit the use of choke holds and similar carotid holds except where deadly force is authorized.
Once the DOJ has reviewed and approved these policies, the PGPD shall immediately implement any revisions.
B. Oleoresin Capsicum (OC)
35. The PGPD will revise and augment its OC policy to:
a. define all terms clearly; b. limit the use of OC to only those cases in which such
force is necessary to protect the officer, the subject, or another party from physical harm, or is necessary to effectuate the arrest of an actively resisting subject, or prevent the escape of that subject; c. continue to prohibit the use of OC in passive, civil demonstrations; d. reinforce the prohibition against using OC spray in crowded areas; e. provide that OC may be used only when verbal commands and other techniques that do not require the use of force would be ineffective, or where issuing verbal commands would present a danger to the officer or others; f. require, that unless it would present a danger to the officers or others, a verbal warning to the subject that OC will be used must be issued prior to use, and that, where feasible, the officer will defer using OC a reasonable time to allow the subject to comply with the warning; g. require officers to target only the subject’s face and upper torso when using hand-held OC canisters; h. provide guidance regarding the proper duration of a burst of OC and the distance from which it is applied; i. require that, absent exceptional circumstances, officers will offer to decontaminate every subject exposed to OC within twenty minutes of the application of OC; j. require that officers request medical response or medical assistance for subjects exposed to OC when they complain of continued effects after having been de-contaminated, or they indicate that they have a pre-existing medical condition (e.g., asthma, emphysema, bronchitis, heart ailment, etc.) that may be aggravated by OC;
7


k. Require that officers remove a subject exposed to OC from a face down position as soon as it is safe to do so; and
l. provide that OC may be used on a restrained subject only when, absent the use of OC, the subject or another person is likely to suffer injury, or escape.
Once the DOJ has reviewed and approved these revisions, the PGPD shall immediately implement the revisions.
36. The parties agree that the PGPD shall continue to require officers to notify their supervisor whenever they discharge OC. The PGPD shall continue to require supervisors to document the incident on a Commander’s Information Report. In addition, the supervisor shall record the basis for discharging OC, including the reason for the level of force used; the duration of the discharge; and an estimate of the distance at which the discharge occurred.
37. The PGPD will require that all uses of spray against a restrained person be reviewed by the officer’s supervisor, who must, where feasible, take tape-recorded statements from the officer and subject. The PGPD will make best efforts to take tape-recorded statements from other witnesses and third parties. These reviews will be evaluated and signed by the BPR.
38. The PGPD will provide regular in-service training on the proper amount of OC to use, how to deliver OC effectively, and the proper anatomical targets for OC.
39. The PGPD will continue to maintain an accounting of the number of chemical spray canisters annually distributed to and utilized by each officer. Additionally, the PGPD will maintain an accounting of OC foam dispensers and ammunition used in pepperball launchers.
IV. EVALUATION, DOCUMENTATION, AND REVIEW OF USES OF FORCE
A. General Use of Force Incidents
40. Officers shall notify their supervisors following any use of force or upon the receipt of an allegation of excessive force. Except for those instances in which the only use of force is a canine deployment, supervisors will respond to the scene, examine the subject for injury, interview the subject for complaints of pain, and ensure that the subject receives needed medical attention.
8


41. Supervisors will review, evaluate, and document each use of force, and will prepare a Commander’s Information Report (“CIR”). The CIR will include a precise description of the facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to justify the officer’s conduct. As part of this review, the supervisor will evaluate the basis for the use of force, and determine whether the officer’s actions were within PGPD policy. An officer who used force during the incident, or whose conduct led to an injury, or who authorized conduct leading to the use of force or allegation of excessive force will not be eligible to review the incident.
42. BPR will respond to the scene of all serious uses of force. Serious uses of force are: all uses of force resulting in death; all uses of force by an officer resulting in a broken bone or an injury requiring hospitalization; all uses of force resulting in a loss of consciousness or creating a substantial risk of death, serious disfigurement, or disability; all incidents where a person receives a bite from a departmental canine; and all critical firearm discharges. The BPR will be required to review and evaluate in writing the supervisor’s performance reviews of such uses of force.
43. The parties agree that it is improper interview procedure to ask officers or other witnesses leading questions during use of force reviews that improperly suggest legal justifications for the officer’s conduct when such questions are contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques. In each review, the PGPD will consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. The PGPD will make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements. The PGPD will train all of its supervisors on the factors to consider when evaluating credibility.
44. Supervisors shall conduct a performance review of all uses of force or an injury resulting from a use of force by any officer under their command. In a performance review, supervisors shall interview all witnesses to a use of force or an injury resulting from a use of force. Consistent with the requirements of LEOBR, PGPD supervisors (or BPR as appropriate) shall ensure that all officer witnesses provide a statement regarding the incident. Supervisors (or BPR as appropriate) shall ensure that all use of force reports identify all officers who were involved in the incident or
9


were on the scene when it occurred. Supervisors (or BPR as appropriate) shall ensure that all reports indicate whether an injury occurred, whether medical care was provided, and whether the subject refused medical treatment. Supervisors (or BPR as appropriate) shall ensure that all reports include contemporaneous photographs or videotapes taken of all injuries at the earliest practicable opportunity, both before and after any treatment, including cleansing of wounds.
45. The District or unit Commander will evaluate each performance review conducted by supervisors, identify any deficiencies in those reviews, and require supervisors to correct any deficiencies. Supervisors will be held accountable for the quality of their reviews. Appropriate non-disciplinary corrective action and/or disciplinary action will be taken when a supervisor fails to conduct a timely and thorough review, or neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action, or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action.
B. Critical Firearm Discharges and Creation of Firearm Discharge Review Board
46. The PGPD will investigate or review as appropriate all critical firearm discharges. The PGPD will ensure that the investigation or review accounts for all shots and the locations of all officers who discharged their firearms. The PGPD will conduct all ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue or bullet trajectory tests, as appropriate.
47. The PGPD will create a special board to review all critical firearm discharges. The board will review each BPR investigation and supervisor’s performance review (if applicable) of a critical firearm discharge for compliance with PGPD policy, as well as for tactical and training implications. The board’s review will include investigative files and interviews of the principal investigators and/or supervisors. Following its review, the board will prepare a report for the Chief of Police. The report will be made a part of the complete PGPD file regarding the incident, and it will include a description of the incident (including all uses of force); a summary and analysis of all relevant evidence; proposed findings; and analysis to support those findings. In particular, the board will determine: a) whether all uses of force during the encounter were consistent with PGPD policy and training; b) whether the
10


officer(s) involved employed proper tactics; and c) whether lesser force alternatives reasonably were available. Membership on the board will rotate, but will at least include a member of the PGPD command staff, a Training Academy representative, the affected Bureau Commander and an attorney from the County Attorney’s office.
48. The PGPD policy that defines the Firearm Discharge Review Board’s role will:
a. require the board, absent exceptional circumstances, to review within 90 days of the end of all criminal reviews of the incident, all critical firearm discharges;
b. set forth the membership of the board;
c. authorize the board to recommend to the Chief of Police that non-disciplinary corrective action be taken;
d. require the board to act as a quality control mechanism for all shooting or firearm discharge investigations, with responsibility to return to the investigating unit all incomplete or mishandled shooting or firearm discharge investigations and/or supervisor’s performance reviews;
e. charge the board with the authority and responsibility to recommend to the Chief of Police investigative protocols and standards for all critical firearm discharge investigations and/or supervisor’s performance reviews; and
f. require the board annually to review each critical firearm discharge to detect patterns and/or problems and to report its findings and recommendations to the Chief of Police.
V. TRAINING
A. Management Oversight
49. The PGPD will coordinate and review all use of force policy and training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and PGPD policy. The PGPD will conduct regular subsequent reviews, at least semi-annually.
11


50. The Director of the Academy, either directly or through his/her designee(s), consistent with Maryland law and the Maryland Police and Correctional Training Commission standards, will:
a. ensure the quality of all use of force training; b. develop and implement use of force training curricula; c. select and train PGPD officer trainers; d. develop, implement, approve, and oversee all in-service
training; e. develop, implement, approve, and oversee a patrol
division roll call protocol designed to effectively inform officers of relevant changes in policies and procedures; f. establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and g. conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that use of force training is responsive to the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.
51. The PGPD will provide training consistent with PGPD policy, law, and proper police practices, and will ensure that only mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by instructors. The PGPD will make best efforts to train each work shift as a team in their use of force training.
52. The PGPD shall keep adequate records of lesson plans and other training materials, such that the most current training documents are maintained in a central, commonly accessible file, and are clearly dated.
53. The PGPD shall maintain training records regarding every PGPD officer which reliably indicate the training each officer has received. The training records shall, at a minimum, include the course description and duration, curriculum, and instructor for each officer.
B. Curriculum
54. Either as a subcommittee of the existing Training Committee or as a stand-alone committee, the PGPD will form a curriculum and policy committee that will include core Academy staff, a broad cross-section of field personnel, PGPD command staff, and a representative of the County Attorney’s office. The committee will review all use of force training and use of force policies on a regular basis to ensure compliance with applicable laws and PGPD policy. The Chief of Police, in consultation with the County
12


Executive, has decided to charge the committee with exploring best use of force practices and innovations. The committee will report its findings and recommendations in writing to the Chief of Police on an annual basis.
55. The PGPD will continue to provide all recruits, officers, supervisors, and managers with annual training on use of force. Such training will include and address the following topics:
a. the PGPD’s use of force model, as described in this Agreement;
b. proper use of force decision-making; c. the PGPD’s use of force reporting requirements; d. the Fourth Amendment and other constitutional
requirements; e. examples of scenarios faced by PGPD officers that
illustrate proper use of force decision-making; f. interactive exercises that emphasize proper use of
force decision-making; g. the proper amount of OC to use, how to deliver OC
effectively, and the proper anatomical targets for OC; h. de-escalation techniques that encourage officers to
make arrests without using force, and instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units, or delaying arrest may be the appropriate response to a situation even when the use of force would be legally justified; i. additional training to its officers on alternate safe techniques for extracting subjects from stationary vehicles and disabling such vehicles; j. threat assessment; k. factors to consider in initiating or continuing a pursuit; and l. appropriate training on conflict management.
56. The PGPD will provide training to all its officers on the PGPD citizen complaint process, including the role of the CCOP and the BPR in the process. The PGPD will develop a protocol for all its officers on appropriate conduct and responses in handling citizens’ complaints and will train officers in the protocol.
57. The PGPD will provide training on appropriate burdens of proof to all supervisors, as well as the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility (to ensure that their recommendations regarding dispositions are
13


unbiased, uniform, and legally appropriate). The PGPD will also provide training to supervisors on leadership and command accountability, including techniques designed to promote proper police practices. This training will be provided to all officers promoted to supervisory rank within 90 days of assuming supervisory responsibilities, and will be made part of annual in-service training.
C. FTOs
58. Within 120 days of the effective date of this Agreement, the PGPD will develop a protocol, subject to the approval of DOJ, to enhance the FTO program. The protocol shall address the criteria and method for selecting FTOs, the training provided to FTOs to perform their duties, the length of time that probationary officers spend in the program, the assignment of probationary officers to FTOs, the substance of the training provided by the FTOs, and the evaluation of probationary officer performance by the FTOs. The protocol will also set standards that require the appropriate assessment of an officer’s past complaint and disciplinary history before an officer is selected to serve as an FTO. FTO appointments will be subject to review for reappointment at the discretion of the Director of the Academy or the Commander of the Training and Education Division. District commanders will also have discretion, upon consultation with the Academy staff, to remove an officer from the FTO program.
59. FTOs will be reviewed when an Academy class graduates, with re-certification dependent on satisfactory prior performance and feedback from the Academy and the FTO’s District Commander.
VI. RECEIPT, INVESTIGATION, AND REVIEW OF MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS
A. Public Information
60. The County and the PGPD will continue their programs to inform persons that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any officer.
61. The County will make complaint forms and informational materials available at all PGPD district stations, libraries, the internet, and, upon request, to community groups and community centers. At each PGPD district station, the PGPD will permanently post a placard describing the complaint process and include the relevant phone
14


numbers. The PGPD will require all officers to carry informational brochures in their vehicles at all times while on duty. If a citizen objects to an officer’s conduct, that officer will inform the citizen of his or her right to make a complaint. Officers will not discourage any person from making a complaint.
B. Filing and Tracking Complaints
62. Except for complaints alleging brutality, complaints may be filed in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone (or TDD), facsimile or electronic mail. In cases where a complaint asserts only the individual’s contention of innocence of a charge, without any allegation of misconduct by the officer, the complainant will be advised to seek judicial redress through established court procedures. In all other cases, the duty officer at the front desk of each district station will be authorized to take complaints, including third-party complaints, which persons may file at any district station. Complaint intake officers may describe facts that bear upon a complainant’s demeanor and physical condition, but may not express opinions regarding his/her mental competency or veracity. Complaint forms shall be readily available at all precincts. A complaint form will be completed each time a person attempts to file a complaint as described herein. Brutality complaints will be accepted when they are notarized and filed within 90 days of the alleged brutality, consistent with the requirements of LEOBR. The PGPD shall ensure that at least one employee who holds a valid commission from the State of Maryland as a notary public is available 24 hours per day at all times to respond to the complainant’s location within a reasonable amount of time and notarize the document.
63. Each complaint will be resolved in writing. Upon receipt at BPR, each complaint will be assigned a unique identifier, which will be provided to the complainant within 10 business days. Each complaint will be tracked according to the basis for the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy, improper search, etc.).
64. The PGPD will request that the CCOP forward copies of all allegations of misconduct filed with the CCOP against the PGPD within five business days of receipt.
15


C. Investigation of Complaints
65. All investigations shall be conducted in accordance with the LEOBR.
66. Complaints will be evaluated based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, for which the County will develop and implement appropriate training.
67. The PGPD will explicitly prohibit from investigating an incident any officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to the injury to a prisoner, or who authorized the conduct that led to these reportable incidents.
68. The parties agree that in each investigation, the BPR will consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. The BPR will make efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements. The BPR will train all of its investigators on the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility. The BPR will prohibit investigators, during complaint investigations, from improperly asking officers or other witnesses leading questions that improperly suggest legal justifications for the officer’s conduct when such questions are contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques. Consistent with the requirements of LEOBR, PGPD investigators will ensure that all officers on the scene of an incident provide a statement regarding the incident.
69. During an investigation, all relevant police activity, including each use of force (i.e., the investigation will not be limited to the force complained about), will be investigated. The investigation will also evaluate any searches or seizures that occurred during the incident. The BPR will not close an investigation simply because the alleged victim is unwilling or unable to provide medical records or proof of injury; rather, the BPR will continue its investigation as necessary to determine whether the original allegation(s) can be resolved.
16


70. In conducting investigations, BPR will, subject to and in conformance with applicable law, including the LEOBR, at a minimum:
a. continue to tape record or videotape interviews of complainants, involved officers, and witnesses;
b. whenever practicable and appropriate, conduct interviews of complainants and witnesses at sites and times convenient for them, including at their residences or places of business;
c. whenever practical, prohibit group interviews;
d. notify the supervisors of the involved officers of the investigation, as appropriate;
e. interview all appropriate PGPD officers, including supervisors, in accordance with the requirements of the LEOBR;
f. collect, preserve, and analyze all appropriate evidence, including canvassing the scene to locate witnesses and obtain the complainant’s medical records, where appropriate; and
g. identify and report, in writing, all material inconsistencies in officer and witness interview statements gathered during the investigation.
71. At the conclusion of each investigation, the individual responsible for the investigation will prepare a report on the investigation, which will be made a part of the investigation file. The report will include a description of the alleged misconduct and any other misconduct issues identified during the course of the investigation; a summary, and, where appropriate, analysis of all relevant evidence gathered during the investigation; and proposed findings and analysis supporting the findings. Absent exceptional circumstances, BPR will complete all investigations within 90 days after receiving the allegations.
17


72. The complainant will be notified when the complaint is referred to the CCOP. Upon completion of the investigation and any necessary hearings required under the LEOBR, the complainant will be notified of its outcome, including an appropriate statement regarding whether any non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action was taken, to the extent permitted by Maryland law.
73. Each allegation in an investigation will be resolved by making one of the following dispositions:
a. “Unfounded,” where the investigation determined no facts to support that the incident complained of actually occurred;
b. “Sustained,” where the person’s allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to determine that the incident occurred and the actions of the officer were improper;
c. “Not Sustained,” where there are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct occurred; and
d. “Exonerated,” where a preponderance of the evidence shows that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate PGPD policies, procedures, or training.
74. District Commanders will evaluate each investigation of an incident in their command to identify underlying problems and training needs. Any such problems or needs will be relayed in the form of a recommendation to the appropriate PGPD entity.
VII. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION
A. Early Identification System
75. The PGPD will enhance and expand its Early Identification System to include a computerized relational database for maintaining, integrating, and retrieving data necessary for supervision and management of the entire PGPD. The PGPD will regularly use this data to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance of officers across all ranks, units, and shifts.
76. The new database will collect and record the following information for PGPD officers:
a. all uses of force; b. the number of OC spray and foam canisters, and
ammunition for pepperball launchers used by officers; c. all injuries to prisoners;
18

d. all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with “resisting arrest,” “assault on a police officer,” “disorderly conduct,” or “obstruction of justice;”
e. all critical firearm discharges, both on-duty and off-duty;
f. all complaints (and their dispositions); g. all criminal proceedings initiated, as well as all
civil or administrative claims alleging misconduct, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the County, or its officers, or agents, resulting from PGPD operations or the actions of PGPD personnel; h. all vehicle pursuits; and i. all disciplinary action taken against officers.
77. The database will include, for all incidents in the database, appropriate identifying information for each involved officer (e.g., name, badge number, shift and supervisor) and subject (e.g., race, ethnicity or national origin).
78. Pursuant to the schedule in paragraph 82, the PGPD will, within 90 days of the date of this agreement, prepare for the review and approval of DOJ, and thereafter implement, a protocol for using the new database. The County will submit for the review and approval of DOJ all proposed modifications to the protocol prior to implementing such modifications.
79. Pursuant to the schedule in paragraph 82, the PGPD will, within 90 days of the date of this agreement, prepare for the review and approval of DOJ, and thereafter implement, a plan for including appropriate fields and values of new and historical data into the risk management system (the "Data Input Plan"). The Data Input Plan will identify the data to be included and the means for inputting such data (direct entry or otherwise), the specific fields of information to be included, the past time periods for which information is to be included, the deadlines for inputting the data, and the responsibility for the input of the data. The Data Input Plan will include current and complete data in the risk management system.
19


80. The protocol for using the database will include the following provisions and elements:
a. The protocol will comprise the following components: data storage, retrieval, and analysis; reporting, pattern identification; supervisory assessment and intervention; and documentation and audit.
b. The protocol will require the automated system to produce the following information, based on the data: i. number of incidents in each data category for each officer and for all officers in a unit; ii. average level of activity in each data category for each officer and for all officers in a unit; and iii. identification of patterns of activity in each data category for each officer and for all officers in a unit.
c. The protocol will require the system to generate reports on a monthly basis describing the data and data analysis and identifying individual and unit patterns.
d. The protocol will require that PGPD commanders, managers, and supervisors will review, on a regular basis but not less than quarterly, system reports, and will evaluate individual officer, supervisor, and unit activity.
e. The protocol will require that PGPD commanders, managers, and supervisors initiate intervention for individual officers, supervisors, and units based on appropriate activity and pattern assessment of the information contained in the database.
f. The protocol will require that intervention options include discussion by commanders, managers, supervisors, and officers; counseling; training; and supervised, monitored, and documented action plans and strategies designed to modify activity. All interventions will be documented in writing and entered into the automated system (appropriate intervention options will be employed based on the evaluation described in subsection (e) above).
g. The protocol will specify that actions taken as a result of information from the relational database be based on all relevant and appropriate information, including the nature of the officer’s assignment, crime trends and crime problems, and not solely on the number or percentages of incidents in any category of information recorded in the database.
20


h. The protocol will require that PGPD commanders, managers, and supervisors be evaluated on their ability to use the database to enhance effectiveness and reduce risk.
i. The protocol will require the PGPD to conduct audits of the system at reasonable intervals to ensure action is taken according to the process described above.
j. The protocol will require regular reviews, at no less than quarterly intervals, by appropriate managers of all relevant risk management system information to evaluate officer performance Department-wide, and to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all PGPD units in order to identify any significant patterns or series of incidents.
81. The County will maintain all personally identifiable information about a PGPD officer included in the database during the officer’s employment with the PGPD and for the maximum length of time permitted by the LEOBR. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis will be maintained indefinitely in the database. On an ongoing basis, the PGPD will enter information into the risk management system in a timely, accurate, and complete manner, and maintain the data in a secure and confidential manner.
82. The database will be developed and implemented according to the schedule below. The PGPD may satisfy the terms of this Agreement by obtaining necessary modifications to their existing database (subject to DOJ approval) or by obtaining a new database.
a. Within 90 days of the effective date of this Agreement, subject to the review and approval of DOJ, the PGPD will issue the Request for Proposal (RFP), a preliminary outline of the protocol for using the risk management system, and a preliminary outline of the Data Input Plan.
b. Within 120 days of the issuance of the RFP, or later with the agreement of DOJ, the PGPD will select the contractor to create the database or to make appropriate modifications to an existing database to bring it into compliance with this Agreement.
c. Within 90 days of the effective date of this Agreement, the PGPD will submit the final protocol for using the risk management system and the final Data Input Plan to DOJ for review and approval. The PGPD will share drafts of this document with DOJ and the Monitor (a
21


position described in Section VIII) to allow DOJ and the Monitor to become familiar with the document as it develops and to provide informal comments on it. d. Within 12 months of selecting the contractor, the County will have ready for testing a beta version of the database consisting of the following elements: i. server hardware and operating systems installed,
configured and integrated with the PGPD’s existing automated systems; ii. necessary data base software installed and configured; iii. data structures created, including interfaces to source data; and iv. the use of force information system completed, including historic data. DOJ and the Monitor will have the opportunity to participate in testing the beta version using use of force data and test data created specifically for purposes of checking the database. e. The database computer program and computer hardware will be operational and fully implemented within 18 months of the selection of the contractor.
83. Prior to implementation of the database contemplated in this Agreement, the PGPD will maintain and use existing databases and resources to the fullest extent possible, to identify patterns of conduct by PGPD officers or groups of officers.
84. Following the initial implementation of the database, and as experience and the availability of new technology may warrant, the PGPD may propose to add, subtract, or modify data tables and fields, modify the list of documents scanned or electronically attached, and add, subtract, or modify standardized reports and queries. The PGPD will submit all such proposals for review and approval by DOJ before implementation.
B. Oversight
85. The PGPD will develop a protocol for conducting audits. The protocol will be used by each officer or supervisor charged with conducting audits. The protocol will establish a regular and fixed schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency, and cover all six PGPD districts.
22


86. The PGPD will conduct the following audits pursuant to the protocol in paragraph 85:
a. It will conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits, covering all six districts, that examine citizen complaints processed through the CCOP, including auditing selected samples of complaints that were resolved through the CCOP, contacting the complainants to evaluate whether the actions and views of the citizen were captured correctly in the CCOP report, and examining whether there is consistency in the CCOP across districts. It will issue a report on the results which will be provided to each district commander. Each district commander will review the report in regard to all officers under their command involved in an incident and, if appropriate, the PGPD will impose disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective action.
b. It will conduct semi-annual integrity audits and issue a report on the investigations conducted by BPR. The report will evaluate BPR’s investigation of selected use of force and citizen complaints. The report will assess the reliability and completeness of BPR’s canvassing and interviewing of witnesses, preservation and analysis of the incident scene, and the appropriateness of BPR’s conclusions.
87. The PGPD will semi-annually solicit in writing from local prosecutors whether the prosecutors are aware of any issues with any individual officer or Department-wide performance.
C. Use of Video Cameras
88. The PGPD will continue to make its best efforts to operate video cameras in all currently equipped vehicles. The PGPD is encouraged to continue developing a policy on video cameras that will require:
a. mandatory activation for all traffic stops and pursuits that continues until the motor vehicle stop is completed and the stopped vehicle departs, or until the officer’s participation in the motor vehicle stop ends;
b. to the extent practical, manual activation for incidents in which the prisoner being transported is violent;
23


c. supervisors to review the tapes in all cars of all officers listed in any PGPD report regarding any incident involving injuries to a prisoner or an officer, uses of force, vehicle pursuits, and citizen complaints; and

d. that the PGPD retain and preserve tapes for at least 90 days, or as long as necessary for incidents subject to investigation.

89. If an officer actively participates in a motor vehicle stop and is aware that the motor vehicle stop was not recorded using the video camera equipment, the officer will notify the shift supervisor of the reason the stop was not recorded.

90. The PGPD will conduct periodic random reviews of mobile camera videotapes for training and integrity purposes. Supervisors conducting these reviews will document their activity in a log book. In addition, the PGPD will require periodic random surveys of mobile video recorder equipment to confirm that they are in proper working order.

VIII.

MONITORING, REPORTING, AND IMPLEMENTATION

A. Independent Monitor

91. By 90 days from the date of this Agreement, the County and

the DOJ shall together select an Independent Monitor,

acceptable to both, who shall monitor and report on the

County’s implementation of this Agreement. The parties

recognize that one person, or team of people, may be

selected to fulfill the role of Monitor. The selection of

the Monitor shall be pursuant to a method jointly

established by the DOJ and the County. If the DOJ and

County are unable to agree on a Monitor or an alternative

method of selection within 90 days from the date of this

Agreement, the DOJ and the County each shall submit two

candidates who have experience as a law enforcement

practices expert or monitor, or as a Federal, state or local

prosecutor or judge, along with

and cost proposals,

to a third party neutral, selected with the assistance of

the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. The third

party neutral shall then appoint the Monitor from among the

names of qualified persons submitted. The selection of the

Monitor shall be conducted solely pursuant to the procedures

set forth in this Agreement, and will not be governed by any

formal or legal procurement requirements.

24


92. The Monitor, at any time after the initial selection of the person or team of persons as the Monitor, may request to be allowed to hire or employ such additional persons or entities as are reasonably necessary to perform the tasks assigned to him or her by this Agreement. Any person or entity hired or otherwise retained by the Monitor to assist in furthering any provisions of this Agreement shall be subject to the provisions of paragraphs 103 and 106, governing testifying, conflicting employment and confidentiality. The Monitor shall notify the County and the DOJ in writing if the Monitor wishes to select such additional persons or entities. The notice shall identify and describe the qualifications of the person or entity to be hired or employed and the monitoring task to be performed. If the County, through its Office of Law, and the DOJ agree to the Monitor’s proposal, the Monitor shall be authorized to hire or employ such additional persons or entities. The County or the DOJ have ten days to disagree with the proposal. If the County and the DOJ are unable to reach agreement within ten days of receiving notice of the disagreement, a third party neutral selected with the assistance of the Federal Mediation Conciliation Service shall resolve the dispute.
93. The County shall bear all reasonable fees and costs of the Monitor. In selecting the Monitor, DOJ and the County recognize the importance of ensuring that the fees and costs borne by the County are reasonable, and accordingly fees and costs shall be one factor considered in selecting the Monitor. In the event that any dispute arises regarding the reasonableness or payment of the Monitor’s fees and costs, the County, DOJ and the Monitor shall attempt to resolve such dispute cooperatively prior to seeking the assistance of a third party neutral, selected with the assistance of the Federal Mediation Conciliation Service, to resolve such dispute.
94. The Monitor shall only have the duties, responsibilities and authority conferred by this Agreement. The Monitor shall not, and is not intended to, replace or take over the role and duties of the County Executive, County Council, or Chief of Police. In order to monitor and report on the County’s implementation of each substantive provision of this Agreement, the Monitor shall conduct the reviews specified in paragraph 95 infra and such additional reviews regarding the implementation of this Agreement as the Monitor deems appropriate. At the request of the DOJ or the County, based
25


on the Monitor’s reviews, the Monitor may make recommendations to the parties regarding measures necessary to ensure full and timely implementation of this Agreement.
95. In order to monitor and report on the County’s implementation of this Agreement, the Monitor shall regularly conduct compliance reviews to ensure that the County and the PGPD have implemented and continue to implement all measures required by this Agreement.
96. Subject to the limitations set forth in this paragraph, the PGPD will reopen for further investigation any BPR investigation (including use of force and citizen complaint investigations) the Monitor determines to be incomplete. The Monitor will provide written instructions for completing any investigation determined to be incomplete. The Monitor will provide binding written recommendations to the Chief of Police and BPR to reopen an incomplete investigation. The Monitor will provide these recommendations so that the directive given by the Chief of Police to implement the Monitor’s instructions is given within a reasonable period following the investigation’s conclusion. The Monitor may not exercise this authority concerning any investigation the disposition of which has been officially communicated to the officer who is the subject of the investigation.
97. The parties agree that the PGPD will hire and retain, or reassign a current PGPD employee or independent contractor, for the duration of this Agreement, to serve as a full-time PGPD Compliance Coordinator. The Compliance Coordinator will serve as a liaison between the PGPD, the Monitor and DOJ, and will assist with the PGPD’s compliance with this Agreement. At a minimum, the Compliance Coordinator will: coordinate the PGPD’s compliance and implementation activities; facilitate the provision of data, documents and other access to PGPD employees and material to the Monitor and DOJ as needed; ensure that all documents and records are maintained as provided in this Agreement; and assist in assigning compliance tasks to PGPD personnel, as directed by the Chief of Police or his designee. The PGPD Compliance Coordinator will take primary responsibility for collecting the information the Monitor requires to carry out the terms of this Agreement.
98. In monitoring the implementation of this Agreement, the Monitor shall maintain regular contact with the County and the Chief of Police as well as the DOJ.
26


99. The Monitor shall have full and direct access to all PGPD employees and facilities that the Monitor reasonably deems necessary to carry out the duties assigned to the Monitor by this Agreement. The Monitor shall cooperate with the County and the PGPD to access people and facilities in a reasonable manner that, consistent with the Monitor’s responsibilities, minimizes interference with daily operations.
100. The Monitor shall have full and direct access to all County and PGPD documents that the Monitor reasonably deems necessary to carry out the duties assigned to the Monitor by this Agreement, except any documents protected by the attorney-client privilege. Should the County or the PGPD decline to provide the Monitor with access to a document based on attorney-client privilege, the County shall provide the Monitor and DOJ with a log describing the document.
101. For the purpose of implementing this Agreement, the United States and its consultative experts and agents shall have full and direct access to all PGPD employees, facilities, and PGPD documents, to the extent permitted by law. The United States and its consultative experts and agents shall cooperate with the County and the PGPD to access involved personnel, PGPD facilities, and documents in a reasonable manner that minimizes interference with daily operations. Should the County or the PGPD decline to provide the United States with access to a document based on attorney-client privilege, the County shall provide the United States with a log describing the document.
102. The Monitor and DOJ shall provide the County or the PGPD with reasonable notice of a request for copies of documents. Upon such request, the County and the PGPD shall provide the Monitor and DOJ with copies (electronic, where readily available) of any documents that the Monitor and DOJ are entitled to access under this Agreement.
103. All non-public information provided to the Monitor or DOJ, whether by the County or the PGPD, shall be maintained in a confidential manner. Other than as expressly provided in this Agreement, this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any privilege or right the County or the PGPD may assert, including those recognized at common law or created by statute, rule or regulation, against any other person or entity with respect to the disclosure of any document.
27


104. For the purpose of implementing this Agreement, the Monitor shall have direct access to all documents in criminal investigation files that have been closed by the PGPD. The Monitor shall also have direct access to all arrest reports, warrants, and warrant applications whether or not contained in open criminal investigation files; where practicable arrest reports, warrants and warrant applications shall be obtained from sources other than open criminal investigation files.
B. Independent Monitor Reports
105. The Monitor shall issue quarterly written, public reports detailing the County’s compliance with and implementation of each substantive provision of this Agreement. These reports shall be written with due regard for the privacy interests of individual officers and the interest of the County and the PGPD in protecting against disclosure of non-public information. At least ten business days before filing a report, the Monitor shall provide a copy of the draft to the parties for input as to whether any factual errors were made or whether any sensitive data or non-public information is disclosed. The Monitor shall consider the parties’ responses and make appropriate changes, if any, before issuing the report. The Monitor may testify in this case regarding any matter relating to the implementation, enforcement or dissolution of this Agreement.
106. Except as required or authorized by the terms of this Agreement or the parties acting together: neither the Monitor, nor any member of their staff, shall make any public statements or issue findings with regard to any act or omission of the County, or its agents, representatives, or employees; or disclose non-public information provided to the Monitor pursuant to the Agreement. Any press statement made by the Monitor or any member of the Monitor’s staff regarding their employment must first be approved by DOJ. Neither the Monitor nor any member of their staff shall testify in any other litigation or proceeding with regard to any act or omission of the County, the PGPD, or any of their agents, representatives, or employees related to this Agreement or regarding any matter or subject that the Monitor or their staff may have received knowledge of as a result of his or her performance under this Agreement. Unless such conflict is waived by the parties, the Monitor shall not accept employment or provide consulting services that would present a conflict of interest with the Monitor’s responsibilities under this Agreement, including being
28


retained (on a paid or unpaid basis) by any current or future litigant or claimant, or such litigant’s or claimant’s attorney, in connection with a claim or suit against the County or its departments, officers, agents or employees. The Monitor is not a state or local agency, or an agent thereof, and accordingly the records maintained by the Monitor shall not be deemed public records subject to public inspection. Neither the Monitor nor any person or entity hired or otherwise retained by the Monitor to assist in furthering any provision of this Agreement shall be liable for any claim, lawsuit, or demand arising out of the Monitor’s performance pursuant to this Agreement. This paragraph does not apply to any proceeding before a court related to performance of contracts or subcontracts for monitoring this Agreement.
C. County Reports and Records
107. Within 90 days following entry of this Agreement and no later than every three months thereafter until this Agreement is terminated, the County shall file with the Monitor, with a copy to the DOJ, a status report delineating the steps taken by the County and the PGPD during the reporting period to comply with each provision of this Agreement. The County shall also file such a report documenting the steps taken to comply with each provision of this Agreement during the term of this Agreement 120 days before the end of the Agreement’s term.
108. During the term of this Agreement, the County and the PGPD shall maintain all records necessary to document their compliance with the terms of this Agreement and all documents expressly required by this Agreement.
D. Implementation
109. The County shall implement immediately all provisions of this Agreement which involve the continuation of current PGPD policies, procedures, and practices. The remaining provisions shall be implemented either by the specified implementation date or, for those provisions that have no specified implementation date, as soon as is reasonably practicable and no later than 120 days after this Agreement’s effective date.
29


110. In regard to any provision that provides for DOJ “review and approval,” approval will be granted in a timely fashion provided that the PGPD action reasonably satisfies the requirements and standards set forth in the relevant provision(s).
111. The Agreement will terminate three years after the effective date of the Agreement or earlier if the parties agree that the PGPD and the County are in substantial compliance with each of the provisions of this Agreement, and have maintained substantial compliance for at least two years. The burden will be on the County to demonstrate this level of compliance. Noncompliance with mere technicalities, or temporary failure to comply during a period of otherwise sustained compliance, will not constitute failure to maintain substantial compliance. At the same time, temporary compliance during a period of otherwise sustained noncompliance will not constitute substantial compliance.
112. The parties agree to defend the provisions of this Agreement. The parties will notify each other of any court or administrative challenge to this Agreement.
113. This Agreement is enforceable through specific performance in Federal Court. Failure by any of the parties to enforce this entire Agreement or any provision thereof with respect to any deadline or any other provision herein will not be construed as a waiver of its right to enforce other deadlines and provisions of this Agreement.
114. In the event the PGPD or the County fail to fulfill any obligation under this Agreement, DOJ will, prior to initiating any court proceeding to remedy such failure, give written notice of the failure to the County’s Office of Law. The County will have 60 days from receipt of such notice to cure the failure. At the end of the 60-day period, in the event DOJ determines that the failure has not been cured, DOJ may, without further notice to the County, file an action in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (the “Federal Court Action”) against the County for breach of contract and any other appropriate causes of action and may seek specific performance and any other appropriate form of relief.
30


115. In connection with the Federal Court Action, the PGPD and the County agree as follows:
a. The County and the PGPD will stipulate to subject matter and in personam jurisdiction and to venue.
b. The County and the PGPD agree that service by hand delivery of the summons, complaint, and any other documents required to be filed in connection with the initiation of the Federal Court Action upon the County’s attorney will be deemed good and sufficient service upon the County and the PGPD.
c. The County and the PGPD hereby waive the right to file, and agree not to file or otherwise assert, any motion to dismiss (except for failure to state a claim or failure to meet the service requirements of paragraph 115(b)), to stay or otherwise defer, a Federal Court Action alleging a failure to fulfill any obligation under this Agreement.
d. The County and the PGPD agree to a trial of the Federal Court Action alleging a failure to fulfill any obligation under this Agreement commencing: i) 180 days after service of the summons and complaint as set forth above, or ii) the Court’s earliest availability, whichever is later. The parties agree that discovery in the Federal Court Action alleging a failure to fulfill any obligation under this Agreement may begin within 60 days after service of the summons and complaint. The parties agree to submit all discovery requests and to schedule all depositions within 120 days after the service of the summons and complaint.
116. In the event the Court finds that the County or the PGPD has engaged in a material breach of any provision of this Agreement, the parties hereby stipulate that they will move jointly for the Court to enter the Agreement and any modifications as an order of the court and to retain jurisdiction over the Agreement to resolve any and all disputes arising out of the Agreement.
117. Nothing in this Agreement will preclude DOJ, after complying with paragraph 114, from filing an action under Section 14141 or the Safe Streets Act alleging a pattern or practice of discriminatory policing in addition to or in lieu of the Federal Court Action described above. In the event that any such action is filed, the County and the PGPD hereby waive, and agree not to assert, any defense to that action based on statute of limitations, laches, estoppel or any objection
31


relating to the timeliness of the filing of such action. Nothing in this Agreement will preclude DOJ from filing an action under Section 14141 alleging a pattern or practice of unlawful conduct other than discriminatory policing. Nothing in this Agreement will preclude DOJ from filing an action under any other provision of law. 118. This Agreement will be posted on the web site of the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division of DOJ. 119. The County and the PGPD agree that they will not retaliate against any person because that person has filed or may file a complaint, provided information or assistance, or participated in any other manner in an investigation or proceeding relating to this Agreement. 120. The parties may jointly agree, in writing, to modify this Agreement.
32


FOR THE UNITED STATES:

THOMAS M. DIBIAGIO United States Attorney for the District of Maryland

R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

BRADLEY J. SCHLOZMAN Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
SHANETTA Y. CUTLAR Chief Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division

SANDHYA L. SUBRAMANIAN Special Counsel Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division

GREGORY GONZALEZ Trial Attorney Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305-2941 (telephone) (202) 514-0212 (facsimile)

33


FOR Prince George’s County, Maryland, and the Prince George’s County Police Department:
JACK B. JOHNSON County Executive Office of the County Executive 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-3070 (301) 952-4131 (telephone) (301) 952-3784 (facsimile)
MELVIN C. HIGH Chief of Police Prince George’s County Police Department 7600 Barlowe Road Palmer Park, MD 20785 (301) 772-4740 (telephone)
DAVID S. WHITACRE County Attorney County Administration Building, Room 5121 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-3050 (301) 952-4190 (telephone) (301) 952-3071 (facsimile)
MARY CRAWFORD Associate County Attorney Office of Police Reform 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive, Suite 300 Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-3050
34

 
 Case 8:04-cv-00185-RWT Document 15 Filed 02/02/07 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

)

PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MD, )

and the PRINCE GEORGE’S

)

COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT

)

)

Defendants.

)

_____________________________ )

C.A. No. RWT 04 CV 185
JOINT MOTION AND MEMORANDUM FOR TERMINATION OF CONSENT DECREE

The United States, Prince George’s County, and the Prince George’s County Police Department jointly request that the Court terminate the Consent Decree between the parties entered as an Order of the Court on March 11, 2004. In support of this Motion, the Parties aver that termination on the Order’s three-year anniversary is appropriate under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 60(b)(5) because the Defendants have satisfied the requirements of the Consent Decree as detailed below:

1. On March 11, 2004, at the request of both parties, the Court entered the Consent Decree, addressing use of force by the Prince George’s County Police Department Canine Section, as an Order of the Court. The term of the agreement, as specified in paragraph 77, is three years. The three-year anniversary of the decree is March 11, 2007.
2. Contemporaneously with the negotiation of the Consent Decree, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Agreement addressing the entire Prince George’s County Police Department’s use of force. The Memorandum of Agreement is overseen by an Independent Monitor selected by the parties who publishes quarterly status reports (available on the County’s public website). The Memorandum of Agreement terminates on January 22, 2009.
3. Pursuant to paragraph 74 of the Consent Decree, the Defendants have provided quarterly updates detailing their progress towards compliance (see Appendix A). Additionally, the Defendant’s have posted each report on the County’s public website.

Case 8:04-cv-00185-RWT Document 15 Filed 02/02/07 Page 2 of 8
4. Pursuant to paragraphs 69 to 73 of the Consent Decree, the United States has monitored the Defendants’ progress implementing the Consent Decree.
5. Over the past three years, the United States, along with its expert consultants, completed various on-site compliance inspections of the Prince George’s County Police Department’s Canine Section, as well as reviews of all documentation required under the Consent Decree (see document requests and approval letters in Appendix B).
6. At the conclusion of each inspection or document review, excluding the initial September 2004 base-line on-site compliance inspection, the United States provided the Defendants with a letter evaluating its current compliance status (see Appendix C).
7. On October 21, 2005, following an August 2005 on-site compliance inspection, the United States found that the Defendants had complied with the majority of the Consent Decree provisions, identifying only five paragraphs that required additional improvement and three paragraphs (regarding the Early Intervention System) to be reviewed at a later time (see Appendix C).
8. On April 13, 2006, the United States found that the Defendants had sufficiently improved in the five areas, identified in the October 21, 2005 letter, meriting a compliance finding for each identified paragraph (excluding the three Early Intervention System paragraphs to be evaluated at a later time). (see Appendix C).
9. On May 4, 2006, the United States approved the Defendant’s Protocol and Data Input Plan for the Early Intervention System. The United States notified the Defendants via letter that they had complied with provision 66 of the Consent Decree requiring creation of such documents (see Appendix C).
10. On September 18, 2006, following an August 23, 2006 on-site compliance inspection, the United States found that the Defendants had complied with every provision of the Consent Decree, except paragraph 65 requiring the creation of a computerized Early Intervention System (see Appendix C and DVD of canine demonstrations in Appendix E).
2

Case 8:04-cv-00185-RWT Document 15 Filed 02/02/07 Page 3 of 8
11. On January 30, 2007, after review of the documentation provided along with Defendant’s tenth quarterly report issued on September 30, 2006 and all canine bite investigations and reviews completed in 2006, the United States found the Defendants in compliance with all provisions of the Consent Decree, except paragraph 65 requiring the creation of a computerized Early Intervention System (see Appendix C).
12. Paragraph 65 of the Consent Decree requires the Defendants to create a computerized Early Intervention System to provide oversight for the Canine Section. This paragraph is nearly identical to paragraphs 75 and 76 of the Memorandum of Agreement between the parties requiring the creation of an Early Intervention System regarding the entire department. Moreover, the scope and language of Memoranda of Agreement paragraphs 75 and 76 encompasses the requirements of Consent Decree paragraph 65 (See Appendix D).
13. While the computerized Early Intervention System is not currently functional, the Defendant’s have maintained a “paper system” throughout the life of the Consent Decree using Early Intervention System data to identify officers and coordinate the agency’s response. The United States’ August 23, 2006 compliance review revealed that the Defendants’ “paper system” functioned as required by the Consent Decree. Nevertheless, the United States withheld a “compliance” determination regarding provision 65 because the computer aspect of the system was not yet functional. The computerized system is still under construction and is expected to be functional by December 1, 2007.
14. The Defendants have continued to collect all data required by Paragraph 65 in a database to be used when the computerized Early Intervention System becomes operational. Compliance with the Memorandum of Agreement also requires the Defendants to continue to collect such data.
15. While the Early Intervention System is only represented by a few Consent Decree paragraphs, the System is a cornerstone of the Memorandum of Agreement.
16. The Independent Monitor will continue to oversee the implementation of the Defendants’ Early Intervention System throughout the life of the Memorandum of Agreement, which terminates on January 22, 2009.
17. In order to successfully complete the requirements of the Memorandum of Agreement, the Defendants must achieve compliance with all provisions regarding the creation of the
3

Case 8:04-cv-00185-RWT Document 15 Filed 02/02/07 Page 4 of 8
computerized Early Intervention System. As indicated above, such compliance overlaps with the requirements of Consent Decree paragraph 65. Therefore, the parties request that the Court terminate the Consent Decree, including paragraph 65, because the Defendants have satisfied the Early Intervention System goals of the Consent Decree and the continuing creation of the computerized aspect of the System will be adequately addressed through the ongoing implementation of the Memorandum of Agreement.
18. Additionally, the Parties wish to recognize the Defendants’ tremendous efforts in accomplishing the required reforms within the three-year time period. The Defendant’s hard work institutionalizing police reform, and exceeding the Consent Decree’s requirements by incorporating best practices, creates a foundation for practices that will continue long after the expiration of the Consent Decree, ensuring that the Canine Section’s practices continue to comport with constitutional policing requirements.
19. In conclusion, the Parties agree that termination of the Consent Decree on March 11, 2007 is appropriate under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 60(b)(5) because the Defendants have demonstrated “(1) that for a reasonable period of time (2) they have complied in good faith with the [C]onsent [D]ecree (3) to the point that the ‘vestiges’ of past unlawful behavior have been eliminated ‘to the extent practicable,’ and thus the purpose of the [D]ecree has been satisfied.” Alexander v. Britt, 89 F.3d 194, 200 (4th Cir. 1996), quoting Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 249-50 (1991).
Wherefore, the Parties request that this Court sign the attached Order terminating the Consent Decree on March 11, 2007. A proposed Order is being filed with this Motion.
4

Case 8:04-cv-00185-RWT Document 15 Filed 02/02/07 Page 5 of 8

FOR THE UNITED STATES:
ROD J. ROSENSTEIN United States Attorney District of Maryland

Respectfully submitted,
____________________ WAN J. KIM Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

DATE:

____________________ SHANETTA Y. CUTLAR Chief Special Litigation Section
____________________ TAMMIE M. GREGG Principal Deputy Chief Special Litigation Section
____________________ GREGORY GONZALEZ Senior Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 601 D Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 514-9811

Case 8:04-cv-00185-RWT Document 15 Filed 02/02/07 Page 6 of 8
FOR DEFENDANTS:
____________________ JACK B. JOHNSON County Executive Prince George's County, Maryland Office of the County Executive 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-3070 (301) 952-4131 (telephone)
____________________ MELVIN C. HIGH Chief of Police Prince George's County Police Department 7600 Barlowe Road Palmer Park, MD 20785 (301) 772-4740 (telephone)
____________________ MARY CRAWFORD Deputy County Attorney Office of Police Reform 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive, Suite 300 Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-3050 (301) 952-5501 (telephone)
DATE:

Case 8:04-cv-00185-RWT Document 15 Filed 02/02/07 Page 7 of 8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of the Joint Motion For Entry of Consent Decree and Supporting Memorandum was served by facsimile and regular mail on Feb. 1, 2007, on the following:
MARY CRAWFORD Deputy County Attorney Office of Police Reform 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive, Suite 300 Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-3050 (301) 952-5501 (telephone)
____________________________ GREGORY GONZALEZ

Case 8:04-cv-00185-RWT Document 15 Filed 02/02/07 Page 8 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MD, )

and the PRINCE GEORGE'S

)

COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT

)

)

Defendants.

)

______________________________)

C.A. No. RWT 04 CV 185
ORDER FOR TERMINATION OF CONSENT DECREE

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Having considered the joint motion by the Parties to terminate the Consent Decree on March 11, 2007, the Court hereby finds:

1. The Defendants have satisfied all of the prospective relief required by the Consent Decree to correct the violations of federal rights by Prince George's County and the Prince George's Police Department set forth in the Complaint.

2. Based on the Court’s assessment of the Defendant’s progress, termination of the Consent Decree on March 11, 2007 is appropriate under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 60(b)(5) because the Defendants have demonstrated “(1) that for a reasonable period of time (2) they have complied in good faith with the [C]onsent [D]ecree (3) to the point that the ‘vestiges’ of past unlawful behavior have been eliminated ‘to the extent practicable,’ and thus the purpose of the [D]ecree has been satisfied.” Alexander v. Britt, 89 F.3d 194, 200 (4th Cir. 1996), quoting Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 249-50 (1991).

Accordingly, the Consent Decree Order shall be terminated on March 11, 2007.

SO ORDERED:

____________________________ JUDGE ROGER W. TITUS

________ DATE

 
 Case 8:04-cv-00185-RWT Document 17 Filed 02/12/07 Page 1 of 2

-_flIED

fNrEREf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT -_..L1100Gr0 ---.J£CE''"

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

"W

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff v.

rc'p 1 2 20D7 *

* *

A.tQ~t
CUDIltlS( uT.P.,tDIIITCITtIOOTF~lAr

*
*

""""'"

* Case Number: 04cv185 RWT

*

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY and

*

THE PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY *

POLlCE DEPARTMENT

*

*

Defendants

*

*

ORDER FOR TERMINATION OF CONSENT DECREE

Upon consideration ofthe parties' Joint Motion to Terminate Consent Decree [Paper No. 15],

and the arguments ofcounsel presented at the hearing conducted before the undersigned on February

12,2006, the Court hereby finds

1. The Defendants have satisfied all afthe prospective relief required by the Consent Decree

to correct the violations of federal rights by Prince George's County and the Prince George's Police

Department set forth in lhe Complaint; and

2. Based on the Cou rt's assessment of the Defendant's progress, tennination o[the Consent

Decree on March t 1,2007 is appropriate under Fed .R.Civ.Pro . 60(b)(5) because the Defendants

have demonstrated "(1) that for a reasonable period oftime (2) they have complied in good faith with

the [CJonsent [D]ecree (3) to the point that the 'vestiges' of past unlawful behavior have been

eliminated ' to the extent practicable,' and thus the purpose of the [DJecree has been satisfied."

Alexander v. Britt, 89 F.3d 194, 200 (4th Cir. 1996), quoting Board ofEducation ofOklaholllll City

Puhiic Schools v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 23 7, 249-50 (1991).

Case 8:04-cv-00185-RWT Document 17 Filed 02/12/07 Page 2 of 2 Accordingly, this 12th day of February, 2007, by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, ORDERED, [hat the Consent Decree entered on March 11,2004 is TERMINATED effective March 11,2007.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case: 8:04-cv-185 As of: 02/14/2014 02:03 PM EST 1 of 3
U.S. District Court District of Maryland (Greenbelt) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 8:04−cv−00185−RWT

CLOSED

United States of America v. Prince George's County, Maryland et al Assigned to: Judge Roger W Titus Cause: 28:1345 USA Plaintiff
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 01/22/2004 Date Terminated: 03/11/2004 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

United States of America

represented by Gregory Gonzalez United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20530 12023052941 Fax: 12025140212 Email: gregory.gonzalez@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

R Alexander Acosta United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20530 12023052941 Fax: 12025140212 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bradley J Schlozman United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20530 12023052941 Fax: 12025140212 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sandhya L Subramanian United States Department of Justice Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20530 12023052941 Fax: 12025140212 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shanetta Y Cutlar United States Department of Justice Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20530 12023052941 Fax: 12025140212 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant

Case: 8:04-cv-185 As of: 02/14/2014 02:03 PM EST 2 of 3

Prince George's County, Maryland

represented by David Samuel Whitacre Office of Law for Prince Georges County 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Dr Ste 5121 Upper Marlboro, MD 20772 13019525225 Fax: 13019523071 Email: dswhitacre@co.pg.md.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Prince George's County Police Department

represented by Mary Catherine Crawford Prince Georges County Office of Law County Administration Bldg Room 5121 Upper Marlboro, MD 20772 13019525237 Fax: 13019523071 Email: mccrawford@co.pg.md.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/22/2004 01/22/2004 01/22/2004 01/22/2004 02/03/2004
02/12/2004 03/08/2004 03/10/2004 03/11/2004

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Prince George's County Police Department, Prince George's County, Maryland , filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 civil cover sheet)(elt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/22/2004)
2 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by United States of America. Prince George's County Police Department waiver sent on 1/22/2004, answer due 3/22/2004. (elt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/22/2004)
3 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by United States of America. Prince George's County, Maryland waiver sent on 1/22/2004, answer due 3/22/2004. (elt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/22/2004)
4 Joint MOTION for Entry of Consent Decree and Supporting Memorandum by Prince George's County Police Department, Prince George's County, Maryland, United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 proposed order# 2 Consent Decree)(elt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/22/2004)
5 ORDER "HOLDING" a hearing before this Court for consideration of the Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Decree; "DIRECTING" that a notice of the hearing in the form attached as Exhibit A be published by counsel for the plaintiff as therein set forth; "DIRECTING" that a Spanish language translation of the notice of the hearing in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B shall be published as therein set forth; and "ORDERING" any interest person desiring to comment upon the proposed Consent Decree shall do so by submitting written comments as therein set forth Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 2/3/04. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(rank, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
Status Conference held before Judge Roger W Titus (td, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/04/2004)
Telephone Conference held before Judge Roger W Titus (td, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/16/2004)
6 AFFIDAVIT re 5 Order,, Affidavit of Gregory Gonzalez by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Copies of the Public Notice as Published in El Pregonero and the Washington Post and Additional Publishing Information from Each Newspaper)(Gonzalez, Gregory) (Entered: 03/10/2004)
Motion Hearing re 4 MOTION for Entry of Consent Decree and Supporting Memorandum filed by United States of America, Prince George's County, Maryland, Prince George's County Police Department held before Judge Roger W Titus. (Court Reporter Lisa Bankins) (hbm, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/11/2004)

Case: 8:04-cv-185 As of: 02/14/2014 02:03 PM EST 3 of 3

03/11/2004

7 ORDER granting 4 Motion for Entry of Consent Decree, that the Consent Decree be entered as the judgment of this Court, and that the Clerk of Court is directed to administratively close this case. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 03/11/2004. (c/m 3/11/04 et) (elt, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/11/2004)

03/16/2004

8 AFFIDAVIT re 5 Order,,, 6 Affidavit, Amended Affidavit of Gregory Gonzalez by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Documents Supporting Publication of Notice)(Gonzalez, Gregory) (Entered: 03/16/2004)

07/09/2004

9 STATUS REPORT Consent Decree 7/9/04 by Prince George's County, Maryland. (Whitacre, David) (Entered: 07/09/2004)

01/10/2005

10 STATUS REPORT Consent Decree 1/7/05 by Prince George's County, Maryland. (Whitacre, David) (Entered: 01/10/2005)

07/13/2005

11 STATUS REPORT Consent Decree by Prince George's County, Maryland, Prince George's County Police Department. (Whitacre, David) (Entered: 07/13/2005)

01/23/2006

12 STATUS REPORT PGPD 7th Consent Decree Status Report by Prince George's County, Maryland, Prince George's County Police Department. (Whitacre, David) (Entered: 01/23/2006)

01/19/2007

13 ORDER scheduling a concluding hearing for Consent Decree for 2/12/07 at 8:30 a.m. at the request of the parties. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 12/15/06. (rank, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 1/22/2007 (rank, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 01/22/2007)

02/01/2007

14 Joint MOTION for Other Relief to Terminate Consent Decree by United States of America, Prince George's County, Maryland, Prince George's County Police Department. Responses due by 2/20/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notice of Lengthy Exhibits)(Crawford, Mary) Modified on 2/2/2007 (elt, Deputy Clerk). [Lengthy Exhibits A−D rec'd − FILED SEPARATELY) (Entered: 02/01/2007)

02/02/2007

15 Joint MOTION Second Amended Joint Motion to Terminate Consent Decree by United States of America, Prince George's County, Maryland, Prince George's County Police Department. Responses due by 2/20/2007 (Crawford, Mary) (Entered: 02/02/2007)

02/08/2007

16 PAPERLESS CORRESPONDENCE to counsel RESCHEDULING the Monday, February 12, 2007 8:30 a.m. hearing to begin at 9:00 a.m. instead. (Titus, Roger) (Entered: 02/08/2007)

02/12/2007

Motion Hearing held on 2/12/2007 re 15 Joint MOTION Second Amended Joint Motion to Terminate Consent Decree filed by Prince George's County, Maryland, Prince George's County Police Department, United States of America, 14 Joint MOTION for Other Relief to Terminate Consent Decree filed by Prince George's County, Maryland, Prince George's County Police Department, United States of America held before Judge Roger W Titus. (Court Reporter T. Dunlap) (hbm, Courtroom Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/12/2007)

02/12/2007

17 ORDER Terminating the Consent Degree 7 entered on 3/11/04 Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 2/12/07. (rank, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/12/2007)

 
 CONSENT DECREE Between the United States Department of Justice
and Prince George’s County, Maryland and The Prince George’s County Police Department
January 22, 2004

I. INTRODUCTION

1


A. General Provisions

1


B. Definitions

5


II. CANINE SECTION POLICY AND PROCEDURES

8


A. Guard and Bark Methodology

8


B. Deployments

9


C. Warnings

11


D. Recording and Evaluating Canine Bites

12


E. Accountability

14


III. REVIEW OF CANINE DEPLOYMENTS

15


IV. TRAINING

17


V. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION

20


A. Risk Management System

20


B. Oversight

23


VI. MONITORING, REPORTING, AND IMPLEMENTATION

23


A. Monitoring of Agreement

23


B. County Reports and Records

25


C. Implementation

26


Prince George’s County Canine Section Consent Decree
I. INTRODUCTION
A. General Provisions
1. The United States and Prince George’s County, a chartered governmental corporation in the State of Maryland, share a mutual interest in promoting effective and respectful policing. They join together in entering this Agreement in order to promote police integrity and prevent conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
2. In its Complaint, Plaintiff United States alleges that Prince George’s County and the Prince George’s County Police Department (collectively, “the County Defendants”) are violating 42 U.S.C. § 14141 by engaging in a pattern or practice of excessive force by officers of the Prince George’s County Police Department Canine Section (the “Canine Section”) and by the failure of the County Defendants to adopt and implement proper management practices and procedures.
3. The County Defendants deny the allegations in the Complaint. Nothing in this Agreement, the United States’ Complaint, or the negotiation process shall be construed as an admission or evidence of liability under any federal, state or local law. 1


4. This Court has jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345. The United States is authorized to initiate this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 14141. Venue is proper in the District of Maryland pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, as the Defendants reside in and the claims arose in the District of Maryland.
5. This Agreement resolves all claims between the United States and Prince George’s County, Maryland involving the Canine Section of the Prince George's County Police Department in the United States’ Complaint filed in this case. This Agreement also constitutes a full and complete settlement of any and all claims the United States may have against the County Defendants and their officers, employees, or agents, regarding any alleged pattern or practice of conduct by Canine Section officers in carrying out their law enforcement responsibilities, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 14141. This Agreement does not apply to the United States’ broader investigation under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 of allegations that the Police Department engages in a pattern or practice of excessive force.
6. The parties enter into this settlement jointly for the purpose of avoiding the burdens of litigation, and to partner in support of vigorous and constitutional law enforcement. Moreover, joint entry of this Agreement is in the public interest since it provides for expeditious remedial activity, promotes the use of the best available policing practices and procedures, and avoids the diversion of federal and County resources to adversarial actions by the parties.
2


7. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to alter the lawful authority of Canine Section officers to use force, effect arrests and file charges, or otherwise fulfill their law enforcement obligations in a manner consistent with the requirements of the Constitutions and laws of the United States and the State of Maryland, including the Maryland Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (“LEOBR”), Md. Code Ann., Public Safety §§ 3-101 to -113 (2003).
8. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to: (a) alter the existing collective bargaining agreements between the County (as defined in paragraph 17 infra) and Canine Section employee bargaining units; or (b) impair the collective bargaining rights of employees in those units under state and local law. The parties acknowledge that the County’s implementation of this Agreement may require compliance with the consulting process. The County shall comply with any such requirement under its collective bargaining agreements and shall do so with a goal of concluding any such processes in a manner that will permit the County’s timely implementation of this Agreement. The County shall give appropriate notice of this Agreement to affected employee bargaining units to allow such processes to begin as to the affected provisions of this Agreement. The County agrees to consult with the United States in regard to the positions it takes in any consulting processes connected with this Agreement.
3


9. This Agreement shall constitute the entire integrated agreement of the parties with respect to the Canine Section of the Prince George's County Police Department. With the exception of correspondence resulting from technical assistance the United States has provided to the County regarding the Canine Section’s Standard Operating Procedures, no prior drafts or prior or contemporaneous communications, oral or written, shall be relevant or admissible for purposes of determining the meaning of any provisions herein in any litigation or any other proceeding.
10. This Agreement is binding upon the parties hereto, by and through their officials, agents, employees, and successors. This Agreement is enforceable only by the parties. No person or entity is intended to be a third-party beneficiary of the provisions of this Agreement for purposes of any civil, criminal, or administrative action, and accordingly, no person or entity may assert any claim or right as a beneficiary or protected class under this Agreement. This Agreement is not intended to impair or expand the right of any person or organization to seek relief against the County Defendants for their conduct or the conduct of Canine Section officers; accordingly, it does not alter legal standards governing any such claims. This Agreement does not authorize, nor shall it be construed to authorize, access to any County or Police Department documents, except as expressly provided by this Agreement, by persons or entities other than the United States and the County Defendants.
4


11. The County is responsible for providing necessary support and equipment to the Police Department, the Chief of Police, and the Canine Section to enable each of them to fulfill their obligations under this Agreement.
12. The County, by and through its officials, agents, employees, and successors, is enjoined from engaging in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers of the Canine Section that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. This paragraph does not apply to the County’s employment policies, practices, or procedures.
B. Definitions
13. The term "bite ratio" means the number of canine apprehensions accomplished by means of a dog bite divided by the total number of canine apprehensions (both with and without a bite).
14. The term “canine apprehension” means any time the canine is deployed and plays a clear and well-documented role in the capture of a person. The mere presence of a canine at the scene of an arrest shall not be counted as an apprehension.
5


15. The term "canine deployment" means any situation in which a canine is brought to the scene and either 1) the canine is released from the police car or 2) the suspect surrenders to the police immediately after an announcement is made that if he or she does not surrender the canine will be released.
16. The term “CCOP” means the Prince George’s County Civilian Complaint Oversight Panel.
17. The term “County” means Prince George’s County, Maryland.
18. The term "discipline" means a written reprimand, suspension, demotion or dismissal, fine, or loss of leave.
19. The term “DOJ” means the United States Department of Justice and its agents and employees.
20. The term “EIS” means the Early Identification System.
21. The term “force” means any physical coercion used to effect, influence or persuade an individual to comply with an order from an officer. The term shall include the use of chemical irritant and the deployment of a canine.
6


22. The term “BPR” means the Prince George’s County Police Department Bureau of Professional Responsibility.
23. The term “including” means “including, but not limited to.”
24. The term “LEOBR” means the Maryland Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights, Md. Code Ann., Public Safety §§ 3-101 to -113 (2003).
25. The term “non-disciplinary corrective action” refers to action other than discipline taken by a PGPD supervisor to enable or encourage an officer to modify or improve his or her performance.
26. The term “PGPD” means the Prince George’s County Police Department.
27. The term “police officer” or “officer” means any law enforcement officer employed by PGPD, including supervisors.
28. The term “Canine Section supervisor” means a sworn PGPD employee at the rank of sergeant or above (or anyone acting in those capacities) and non-sworn personnel with oversight responsibility for other officers in the Canine Section.
7


II. CANINE SECTION POLICY AND PROCEDURES
A. Guard and Bark Methodology
29. Within 30 days of entry of this Agreement, the PGPD shall prepare revisions to its Canine Section policies and procedures to ensure that they are consistent with applicable law. As part of these revisions, the PGPD shall ensure that all terms in its Canine Section Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) shall be clearly defined in accordance with the definitions in this Agreement. Once the DOJ has reviewed and approved these revisions, the PGPD shall immediately implement the revisions.
30. The Prince George's County Police Department represents that the exclusive method of deployment of its Canine Section is the methodology known as “guard and bark”. This method mandates the handler give a “revere” command requiring canines to hold the suspect at bay and bark rather than bite suspects in situations in which such force is not necessary to effect an arrest or protect the safety of officers or civilians.
31. The SOPs shall continue to require that in all circumstances in which a canine is permitted to bite or apprehend a suspect by biting, the handler shall remove the canine at the first possible moment when the canine can be safely released.
8


32. The PGPD represents that all canines are currently properly functioning within a guard and bark methodology. The PGPD shall, in the future, continue to ensure that all canines properly function within a guard and bark methodology.
33. As set forth in more detail infra in Part IV, the PGPD shall provide appropriate training, to include new guard and bark methodology training, to the Canine Section officers and all PGPD Canine Section supervisors. All field supervisors shall be given in-service training on the Standard Operating Procedures for canine deployment and guard and bark methodology.
B. Deployments
34. The SOPs shall limit canine deployments, searches, and other situations in which there is a significant risk of a canine bite to instances in which the suspect is wanted for a serious felony or is wanted for a misdemeanor and is either known to be armed or is reasonably believed to be armed based upon particularized, specific facts.
35. The SOPs shall require canine handlers to have approval from a Canine Section supervisor before a canine can be deployed. The PGPD shall make every reasonable effort to ensure that a Canine Section supervisor supervises searches and deployments and responds as appropriate. In any case, the approving supervisor shall not serve as a canine handler in the course of the deployment. 9


36. When a deployment or search is permitted, a canine handler shall not allow a canine to bite or to apprehend a suspect by biting except in those circumstances in which:
a. the suspect poses a risk of imminent danger to officers or others; b. the suspect is actively fleeing from officers (as contrasted to hiding); c. the suspect is hiding and presents a specific, known, and articulable risk of death or
serious bodily injury to officers or others, such as a hostage or barricade situation; or d. other reasonable alternatives for apprehending the suspect that involve a lesser use of
force have been exhausted or would clearly be ineffective.
37. For these purposes, “imminent danger” is limited to situations in which the suspect, whether armed or not, is attempting to inflict serious bodily injury upon another person. This includes situations in which:
a. the suspect has assaulted, or has attempted to assault, or is assaulting or attempting to assault officers or others with a weapon or other instrumentality capable of producing serious bodily injury; or
b. the suspect has threatened or is threatening to make such an assault or the suspect is attempting to inflict serious bodily injury to another person (example strangulation).
10


38. The SOPs shall require that whenever a canine-related injury occurs, the handler is responsible for ensuring that the injured individual or individuals receive immediate medical treatment through transportation to an emergency room or admission to a hospital.
C. Warnings
39. The SOPs shall require that canine officers loudly and clearly announce a warning that a canine will be deployed. The announcement shall be made sufficiently in advance of the canine deployment to afford the suspect an opportunity to surrender and to allow bystanders to exit the area safely. Amplified announcements via a public address system shall be made when necessary to produce a loud and clear warning, giving consideration to noise, perimeter size, and structural barriers. Announcements shall be made in English and Spanish. The Major in charge of the Canine Section shall, on a semi-annual basis, contact the head of each patrol district in the County to determine if other languages are used in that district. When a language is frequently used in any district, the PGPD shall create a warning tape in that language and distribute a copy of the tape to all Canine Section handlers, who shall then use these tapes in appropriate circumstances.
40. The SOPs shall require the announcement and time interval prior to deployment to be recorded via the mobile video system by the canine officer.
11


D. Recording and Evaluating Canine Bites
41a. The SOPs shall require a report to be completed for all apprehensions and bites, regardless of whether an injury occurred or an arrest was made. For each such use of a canine, the handler shall ensure that all relevant data, including the following information, are recorded:
i. the date, time, police district, and address at which the use of the canine occurred; ii. any crime involved, and whether the suspect was armed; iii. the names of all officers, including supervisors, and witnesses present; iv. the basis for the deployment; v. whether a supervisor approved the deployment, and if not, the reason why the
deployment proceeded without supervisory approval; vi. whether a search announcement was given, and if not, the name of the supervisor who
approved the exception; and vii. a thorough narrative description of the use of the canine, including the distance of the dog
from the handler at the point of apprehension, and any physical contact between the canine and the subject (including the subject’s clothing) and the duration of any such contact, including the subject’s estimate of the duration of contact if that estimate differed from the handler’s estimate.
12


41b. The SOPs shall require a report to be completed for all canine deployments regardless of whether an injury occurred or an arrest was made. For each deployment, the handler shall ensure that all relevant data, including the information set forth in paragraph 41a, with the exception of 41a (iii) and 41a (vii), are recorded.
42. The SOPs shall require that whenever a canine-related injury occurs, regardless of whether an arrest is made and regardless of whether the injury was accidental, a canine-related injury report shall be completed. For each such injury, the Canine Section supervisor shall ensure that all relevant data, including the following information, is recorded:
a. the data required in paragraph 41a and 41b above; b. a full and complete description of the person injured, including name, address, telephone,
gender, race and/or ethnicity, date of birth, height, and weight; c. complete identifying information regarding the treating physician, hospital, or emergency
room to which the injured person was taken; d. a full and complete narrative of how the injuries occurred and their nature and extent; e. a full and complete description of any medical treatment for the injuries; and f. copies of any witness statements.
13


43. The SOPs shall require the Canine Section to compute a bite ratio at monthly, quarterly, and annual intervals for the Canine Section as a whole and for each individual handler and canine team. The numerator of this ratio (number of bites) shall include accidental bites.
E. Accountability
44. The PGPD shall use the records in paragraphs 41a, 41b, 42, and 43 to evaluate the performance of the entire Canine Section and individual handler and canine teams, and to ensure compliance with PGPD policies, procedures, and training.
45. The PGPD shall monitor and investigate all complaints regarding canine deployments and bites.
46. The SOPs shall require the Canine Section to produce a monthly report for the Commander of the Special Operations Division based on the records in paragraphs 41a, 41b, 42, and 43, displaying the performance of individual handler and canine teams in comparison with other teams and with their own past performance. The report shall also display the overall performance of the Canine Section in comparison with past performance.
14


III. REVIEW OF CANINE DEPLOYMENTS
47. Canine Section officers shall notify their supervisors following any canine deployment or other use of force or upon the receipt of a verbal allegation of excessive force. After this notification, supervisors will respond to the scene, examine the subject for injury, and ensure that the subject receives needed medical attention. A supervisor will not be required to respond to the scene in situations where a deployment has occurred without an apprehension, and there has been no other use of force or allegation of excessive force.
48. Canine Section supervisors will review, evaluate, and document each canine apprehension or other use of force, and will prepare a Commander’s Information Report (“CIR”). The CIR will include a precise description of the facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to justify the officer’s conduct. In addition to the CIR, the Canine Section supervisor will conduct a Canine Section use of force review. As part of the Canine Section supervisor’s use of force review, the supervisor will examine the basis for the canine apprehension or other use of force, and determine whether the officer’s actions were within PGPD and Canine Section policy. Incidents will not be reviewed by any officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to an injury, or who authorized conduct leading to the use of force or allegation of excessive force.
15


49. The BPR will respond to the scene of all canine bites which cause serious injury or hospital admission. The BPR will be required to examine and evaluate in writing the Canine Section’s use of force reviews of all canine bites and apprehensions and will be required to submit the written evaluations to the Chief of Police every three months.
50. The parties agree that it is improper interview procedure to ask officers or other witnesses leading questions during Canine Section use of force reviews that improperly suggest legal justifications for the officer’s conduct when such questions are contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques. In each investigation, the PGPD shall train and require supervisors and other investigators to use proper interview procedure, consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. The PGPD will make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements. The PGPD shall train all of its Canine Section supervisors and other investigators on factors to consider when evaluating credibility.
51. PGPD shall interview all witnesses to a use of force or an injury resulting from a use of force. Consistent with the requirements of LEOBR, PGPD shall ensure that all officer witnesses provide a statement regarding the incident. Canine Section Supervisors shall ensure that all use of force reports identify all officers who were involved in the incident or were on the scene when it occurred. Canine Section Supervisors shall ensure that all reports indicate whether an injury occurred, whether medical care was provided, and whether the subject refused medical
16


treatment. Canine Section Supervisors shall ensure that all reports include contemporaneous photographs or videotapes taken at the earliest practical opportunity both before and after any treatment, including cleansing of wounds.
52. The Canine Section Commander will evaluate each review conducted by Canine Section supervisors, identify any deficiencies in those reviews, and require supervisors to correct any deficiencies. Canine Section supervisors will be held accountable for the quality of their reviews. The PGPD will take appropriate non-disciplinary corrective action and/or disciplinary action when a supervisor fails to conduct a timely and thorough review, or neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action.
IV. TRAINING
53. The PGPD shall develop and implement comprehensive canine training curricula and lesson plans that specifically identify objectives of the Canine Section, consistent with the SOPs described in Part II of this Agreement. Once the DOJ has reviewed and approved these curricula and lesson plans, the PGPD shall immediately implement them.
54. The PGPD shall ensure that canine handlers are trained to maintain sufficient control of and contact with their canine partners to prevent canine bites from occurring without legal justification. 17


55. Within 30 days of the date of this Agreement, the PGPD shall prepare, for the review and approval of the DOJ, a protocol for obtaining certification of canines, canine handlers, and inhouse canine trainers. This protocol shall identify the training consultant and shall specify the substantive standards that shall apply in awarding certifications, including standards for certifying canines in handler-controlled alert methodology. The training consultant shall monitor the final testing of canine handlers and their canines. The PGPD shall require that all of its canines, canine handlers, and in-house canine trainers are certified pursuant to the protocol within 180 days of the final approval of the protocol.
56. The PGPD shall ensure that the canines, canine handlers, and in-house canine trainers receive annual re-certification and periodic refresher training. Deviations from certification or training requirements shall result in the removal of the canine or officer from service until such requirements are fulfilled.
57. The PGPD shall develop in-classroom instruction for the Canine Section, to include the following topics: canine deployment policy, canine search tactics, back-up officer tactics and responsibilities, and establishing perimeters.
18


58. The PGPD shall administer in-service training on Canine Section SOPs and the guard and bark methodology to all SWAT supervisors. Joint training between the Canine Section and SWAT will be conducted on barricades, building entries and use of canines in raids.
59. The PGPD shall ensure that all supervisors who have the authority to authorize canine deployment are formally trained in the theory and practice of guard and bark methodology and Canine Section SOPs, with particular emphasis on the appropriateness of canine deployment, control of canines, and officer safety.
60. The PGPD shall maintain a secure canine training field perimeter fence, frequently inspecting it for holes and promptly repairing any breach in the fence. The PGPD shall ensure that routine off-lead training occurs, and shall obtain additional equipment as appropriate to aid in off-lead training.
61. The PGPD shall ensure that all formal canine training sessions are supervised by a Canine Section trainer. The PGPD shall also ensure that Canine Section supervisors monitor all formal training and make best efforts to observe formal training.
62. The PGPD shall maintain adequate numbers of bite suits to ensure sufficient access and flexibility for training of all canines.
19


63. The PGPD shall provide each canine handler with a bite sleeve and a control stick to be carried in the vehicle for post-search training or patrol personnel use when appropriate to aid in controlling a canine whose handler has become incapacitated.
64. The PGPD shall ensure that canine training equipment is securely stored while remaining accessible for use by all canine teams.
V. MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION
A. Risk Management System
65. The PGPD shall implement a system for maintaining, integrating, and retrieving data necessary for supervision and management of the Canine Section within six months of entry of this Agreement. The Bureau of Professional Responsibility shall keep and maintain all investigative files.
a. The system shall collect and record, at a minimum, the following information for Canine Section officers:
i. incidents involving a use of force: officer name and identification number; witness officer name and identification number; description of incident with 20


sufficient detail to permit a meaningful supervisory review of the justification for the use of force; identification of each specific use of force used and the effectiveness of each type of force used; name of the person against whom force was used; description of any injuries to the subject and/or officer resulting from the use of force; medical treatment; and whether the individual against whom force was used was arrested or issued a citation or summons, and if so, the arrest report or citation number; ii. each officer’s investigation history: a summary of all criminal and administrative investigations of a particular officer and a summary, including a narrative description, of the allegations, and any discipline determined and imposed; and iii. a description of all civil or administrative claims filed against an officer arising from Canine Section operations or the actions of Canine Section personnel; a description of all other known civil or administrative claims to which the officer is a named party and which involve allegations of untruthfulness, physical force, or assault.
b. The system shall have, at a minimum, the capability to retrieve information by any of the categories in the database, and to perform statistical analyses of such information 1) by individual officer, and by shift, district, or the entire Canine Section; and 2) by incident or group of incidents.
21


c. The County will maintain all personally identifiable information about a Canine Section officer included in the system during the officer's employment with the PGPD and for the maximum length of time permitted by the LEOBR. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis will be maintained indefinitely in the system. On an ongoing basis, the PGPD will enter information into the system in a timely, accurate, and complete manner, and maintain the data in a secure and confidential manner as allowed or required by law.
66. Within three months of the effective date of this Agreement, the PGPD shall submit a written protocol governing the use of the system to the DOJ for review and approval. The protocol shall specify, at a minimum:
a. the threshold number and type of incidents and/or complaints per officer triggering mandatory review by supervisors;
b. the frequency of any routine reviews; c. the follow-up actions to be taken by PGPD supervisors based on information in the
system; and d. quality assurance checks of data input.
22

67. The PGPD shall provide Canine Section officers with an annual opportunity to review and propose corrections to errors in tracking system information, except regarding open or ongoing investigations or cases.
B. Oversight
68. The PGPD will semiannually solicit in writing from local prosecutors whether the prosecutors are aware of any issues with any Canine Section individual officer or Canine Section-wide performance.
VI. MONITORING, REPORTING, AND IMPLEMENTATION
A. Monitoring of Agreement
69. In order to monitor the County’s implementation of this Agreement, the United States and its consultative experts and agents shall regularly conduct compliance reviews to ensure that the County and the PGPD have implemented and continue to implement all measures required by this Agreement. The United States shall make its consultative experts and agents available for technical assistance following such reviews.
23


70. The United States and its consultative experts and agents shall have full and direct access to all Canine Section employees, facilities, and documents, to the extent permitted by law. The United States and its consultative experts and agents shall cooperate with the County and the PGPD to access involved personnel, PGPD facilities, and documents regarding the Canine Section in a reasonable manner that minimizes interference with daily operations. Should the County or the PGPD decline to provide access to a document based on attorney-client privilege, the County shall provide the United States with a log describing the document.
71. The United States shall provide the County with reasonable notice of a request for copies of documents. Upon such request, the County and the PGPD shall provide the United States with copies (electronic, where readily available) of any documents that the United States is entitled to access under this Agreement.
72. All non-public information provided to the United States, whether by the County, the PGPD, or DOJ, shall be maintained in a confidential manner. Other than as expressly provided in this Agreement, this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any privilege or right the County or the PGPD may assert, including those recognized at common law or created by statute, rule or regulation, against any other person or entity with respect to the disclosure of any document.
24


73. The United States shall have direct access to all documents in criminal investigation files involving Canine Section officers that have been closed by the PGPD, to the extent permitted by LEOBR. The United States shall also have direct access to all documents involving a Canine Section officer, such as arrest reports, warrants, and warrant applications, whether or not contained in open criminal investigation files; where practicable, arrest reports, warrants and warrant applications shall be obtained from sources other than open criminal investigation files.
B. County Reports and Records
74. Within 120 days following entry of this Agreement and no later than every three months thereafter until this Agreement is terminated, the County shall file with the Court, with a copy to the DOJ, a status report delineating the steps taken by the County and the PGPD during the reporting period to comply with each provision of this Agreement. The County shall also file such a report documenting the steps taken to comply with each provision of this Agreement during the term of this Agreement 120 days before the end of the Agreement’s term.
75. During the term of this Agreement, the County and the PGPD shall maintain all records necessary to document their compliance with the terms of this Agreement and all documents expressly required by this Agreement, to the extent allowed by law.
25


C. Implementation
76. This Agreement shall become effective on entry by the Court. The County shall implement immediately all provisions of this Agreement which involve the continuation of current PGPD policies, procedures, and practices. The remaining provisions shall be implemented either by the specified implementation date or, for those provisions that have no specified implementation date, as soon as is reasonably practicable and no later than 120 days after this Agreement’s effective date.
77. The Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action for all purposes during the term of this Agreement. The Agreement shall terminate three years from the effective date, or earlier if the parties have substantially complied with each of the provisions of the Agreement and have maintained substantial compliance for at least two years. The burden will be on the County to demonstrate this level of compliance. Noncompliance with mere technicalities, or temporary failure to comply during a period of otherwise sustained compliance, will not constitute failure to maintain substantial compliance. At the same time, temporary compliance during a period of otherwise sustained noncompliance shall not constitute substantial compliance.
26


78. If there is a significant change in a state law that impairs or impedes the County's ability to implement this Agreement, then each of the parties reserves the right to seek declaratory or other relief from the Court regarding implementation of the affected provisions of this Agreement in light of the change in state law.
79. Before the DOJ pursues any remedy with the Court based upon the County's failure to fulfill an obligation under this Agreement, DOJ shall give written notice of such failure to the County. Except as set forth below, the County shall have 30 days from receipt of such notice to cure or cause the cure of such default. If such default continues beyond 30 days following notice of default, DOJ may, upon three days’ notice to the County (excluding weekends, federal or state holidays), at its election seek a remedy from the Court. The County shall have seven days, excluding weekends, federal or state holidays, to cure or cause the cure of any failure to fulfill an obligation that relates to the provisions of this Agreement regarding access to County or PGPD staff, facilities, or documents, or copies of such documents. If such default continues beyond the seven-day period following notice of default, DOJ may, at its election, immediately seek a remedy from the Court. The notice to be given under this paragraph shall be given by DOJ to the County Attorney on behalf of the County and the Office of Police Reform. The County Attorney shall provide copies to the County Executive and to the Chief of Police.
27


80. The parties agree to defend the provisions of this Agreement. The parties shall notify each other of any court or administrative challenge to this Agreement. In the event any provision of this Agreement is challenged in any local or state court, removal to a federal court shall be sought by the parties.
28


The parties consent and seek entry of this Agreement as an Order of this Court: FOR PLAINTIFF:

THOMAS M. DIBIAGIO United States Attorney for the District of Maryland

R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

BRADLEY J. SCHLOZMAN Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
SHANETTA Y. CUTLAR Chief Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division

SANDHYA L. SUBRAMANIAN Special Counsel Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division

GREGORY GONZALEZ Trial Attorney Special Litigation Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305-2941 (telephone) (202) 514-0212 (facsimile)

29


FOR DEFENDANTS:

JACK B. JOHNSON County Executive Office of the County Executive 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-3070 (301) 952-4131 (telephone) (301) 952-3784 (facsimile)
MELVIN C. HIGH Chief of Police Prince George’s County Police Department 7600 Barlowe Road Palmer Park, MD 20785 (301) 772-4740 (telephone)
DAVID S. WHITACRE County Attorney County Administration Building, Room 5121 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-3050 (301) 952-4190 (telephone) (301) 952-3071 (facsimile)
MARY CRAWFORD Associate County Attorney Office of Police Reform 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive, Suite 300 Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-3050 (301) 952-5501 (telephone) (301) 952-4939 (facsimile)
30

 
 Prince George’s County Police Department &
U.S. Department of Justice
Memorandum of Agreement 3rd. Status Report

December 31, 2004

Dr. Jacqueline Brown
Chief Administrati ve Officer

Jack B. Johnson
County Executi ve

Melvin C. High
Chief of Police

Table of Contents
Introduction ……………………………………………….…. 3 Executive Summary …………………………………………. 4 MOA – Section II – Generally Policy on Responding to Incidents Involving Mentally Ill Persons …………………… 9 MOA – Section III – Use of Force Policies ………………… 10 MOA – Section IV – Evaluation, Documentation and Review of Uses of Force ……………………………….. 13 MOA – Section V – Training ………………………………..17 MOA- Section VI – Receipt, Investigation, and Review Of Misconduct Allegations …………………………………..21 MOA – Section VII – Management and Supervision ………..27 MOA – Section VIII – Monitoring, Reporting, And Implementation ………………………………………... 33 Appendix ……………………………………………………. 37
2

Prince George’s County Police Department Memorandum of Agreement 3rd. Status Report
Introduction
In July 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice initiated an investigation of alleged misconduct by the Canine Section of the Prince George’s County Police Department. In October 2000, the Department of Justice initiated an investigation of an alleged pattern or practice of excessive force throughout the Prince George’s County Police Department. Both investigations were commenced pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141, and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3789d.
Upon assuming office on December 5, 2002, Prince George’s County Executive Jack B. Johnson sought to resolve the issues regarding the two Department of Justice investigations. The County Executive met with Department of Justice officials to facilitate Prince George’s County’s cooperation with the Department of Justice investigations and craft agreements addressing all the parties’ concerns. The Memorandum of Agreement, along with the separate Consent Decree regarding the Canine Section investigation, is the result of a cooperative effort which evinces a commitment to constitutional policing on the part of the U.S. Department of Justice; Prince George’s County, Maryland; and the Prince George’s County Police Department.
The work involved in meeting the expectations of both the Consent Decree and the Memorandum of Agreement began on January 22, 2004. The goal of the Police Department is to ensure full compliance with the mandates of both the Consent Decree and the Memorandum of Agreement. The men and women of the Prince George’s County Police Department are rising to the challenges before them. They are committed to making the Department truly one of the finest in the nation, “dedicated to serving the citizens and residents with excellence”. The Department is continuing to develop new strategies, policies and procedures, and making systematic changes that will allow them to do good constitutional police work, and be held accountable for their actions. The safety and security of the citizens and residents of Prince George’s County is dependent upon the success of the Department in fulfilling the requirements in the Memorandum of Agreement and the Consent Decree.
3

Executive Summary
This is the third status report to the Independent Monitor and the U.S. Department of Justice. This report covers the period beginning on October 1, 2004 and ending on December 31, 2004. During this reporting period several significant efforts outlined below have occurred. The PGPD has made an intense effort to focus on the three areas of concern (Directives, Disparity in Use of Force Reports, and the Early Identification System) cited by the Independent Monitor in their 2nd. Quarterly Report, for specific action during this reporting period. The Department’s efforts are a continuing testament to the commitment that the Police Department is making to fulfill the mandates of the Memorandum of Agreement.
During the current reporting period, the PGPD made a positive effort to have further dialogue with some members of the Independent Monitoring team to obtain additional feedback and analysis on their second site visit. Telephone conferences were held with Mr. Eduardo Gonzalez, Dr. John Kolfas, and Chief Patrick Oliver who provided the PGPD and representatives of the County government with specific recommendations in the areas of improving the agencies policies and directives, designing and preparing a Data Input Plan and a Use Protocol for the Early Identification System, and suggestions on designing and implementing the training curriculums and lesson plans needed to meet the requirements of the MOA.
The remainder of this Executive Summary will highlight key areas of effort during this reporting period.
Early Identification System Update
The meetings cited above with the Independent Monitoring Team were further enhanced by a technical assistance site visit from Dr. John Klofas on November 11, 2004. Dr. Klofas spent half a day with PGPD personnel who are involved with the various phases of the development of the Early Identification System. Specific focus was spent analyzing the various components of information that should be included in the agencies “Data Input Plan”, and the “Use Protocol” required by MOA paragraphs 78, and 79. PGPD personnel attending this meeting included the Deputy Chief(s) of the Support Services Bureau, and the Bureau of Professional Responsibility, as well as personnel from the Internal Affairs, Professional Compliance, and Technical Services Division(s), the Compliance Coordinator, a representative from FOP Lodge #89, and several other operational personnel. Mr. Gregory Gonzalez from the U.S. Department of Justice, and Mr. Larry Davis, the USDOJ EIS consultant from the University of Maryland joined the meeting via teleconferencing and also shared some recommendations for PGPD personnel as the development of the Early Identification System requirements were being discussed. While the technical assistance visit was informative it presented the PGPD with a wealth of information that must be used as the Department prepares the written documents that will govern the use of the Early Identification System component of the Personnel Records Management System.
On November 17, 2004 representatives from the PGPD and the Office of the County Attorney traveled to the Pittsburgh, PA Police Bureau, for a briefing on their Performance Assessment and Review System (PARS). The PARS system is an automated personnel performance management system which was mandated in the Pittsburgh Consent Decree settling a civil rights complaint filed by the U.S. Department of Justice alleging that the Pittsburgh Police Bureau had engaged in a pattern or practice of police misconduct. The Pittsburgh PARS system has been cited nationally by many law enforcement officials as a “best practice” model for Early Identification and Warning Systems. The Independent Monitor recommended that PGPD
4

personnel make this site visit to learn as much as possible about how to implement such a system within the agency, under a MOA or a Consent Decree.
The first visit to the Pittsburgh Police Bureau resulted in a second site visit December 14 15, 2004, for a much smaller group of PGPD personnel to observe a COMPSTAR meeting. The Pittsburgh Police Bureau uses the quarterly COMPSTAR meeting as an accountability measure for its PARS system. COMPSTAR is a command level meeting modeled after COMPSTAT crime management initiative which originated in New York city in the mid 1990’s. COMPSTAR shares the same philosophy as COMPSTAT, but the focus is on personnel management rather than on crime statistics. The Pittsburgh Police Bureau PARS System and the COMSTAR Process has provided the PGPD with invaluable insight on designing and building an enhanced personnel management system which collects a wide range of data, and can conduct analysis to determine and identify top-performing and under-performing officers as well as officers with performance problems.1
On December 7, 2004, PGPD personnel traveled to Trenton New Jersey, for a briefing on the New Jersey State Police Management Awareness Personnel Performance System (MAPPS). This site visit was also a recommendation from the Independent Monitor, in order to obtain more information to assist the PGPD with its MOA Early Identification System requirements. MAPPS is an integrated system for maintaining, retrieving, and analyzing information regarding the performance of members of the New Jersey State Police, to identify, reward, and promote professionalism, civil rights integrity, best practices, as well as to identify, intervene, and remediate potentially problematic behavior.2 Once again the information and knowledge gained from the New Jersey State Police site visit will benefit PGPD personnel who are currently undergoing a process to design and implement a comprehensive personne l records management system which adheres to the MOA requirements for an Early Identification System.
The Support Service Bureau Technical Services team assigned to implement the MOA Early Identification System requirements has prepared an Action Plan which details the steps and actions that will guide this effort. (This Action Plan has been made available to the U.S. Department of Justice and the Independent Monitor as a part of the Appendix to this report).
Directives Update
During this reporting period the PGPD has also made more progress on addressing the Directive/Policy issues identified in both the 1st., and 2nd. Quarterly Report(s) of the Independent Monitor.
In October the PGPD began to search for an experienced directive/policy writer, who would be able to assist the agency in resolving some outstanding formatting and style issues with the directives and policies relative to the MOA. The Department has obtained the services of a part-time directive/policy writer who is assisting the PGPD with this task. Although the drafting, reviewing, and consulting with the appropriate MOA task-holders is tedious and time consuming, the resultant product will yield policies which are clear, concise and can be understood and implemented by police officers and supervisors in the field.
1 Early Intervention Systems for Law Enforcement Agencies – A Planning and Management Guide, Chapter 2, The Components of an Early Intervention System. 2003. 2 New Jersey State Police - Operations Instruction # 04-01; Management Awareness and Personnel Performance System, Section I – Policy, C. 2004.
5

The PGPD is also pursuing the services of a large law enforcement consultation firm to assist with the long term goals of designing a new General Order manual for the entire agency. The Department also formed a new workgroup to coordinate its directive/policy reforms. This workgroup known as the “General Order Manual Reformation Working Group” consists of two Police Lieutenants, and a Police Sergeant. This working group will facilitate the tasks required to rectify all Directive/Policy issues and has established the following goals and objectives for facilitating this process:
Goals:
The goals of the General Order Manual reformation are to: 1) complete an examination of the Department’s existing policies, 2) revise the Department’s policies to reflect best practices, and 3) publish the updated policies in a clear and concise format by January 1, 2006. This project will be completed in collaboration with the Institute of Law and Justice (ILJ) of Alexandria, Virginia. In order to accomplish these goals, the Working Group has established the following objectives:
Objectives (Immediate, Intermediate, and Long Term Strategies):
1. Creation of topic files to categorize subject matter in the existing Manual. (Completed: 12-08-04)
2. Completion of a manual and electronic topic search of the existing Manual. (In process)
3. Development of a new format for the Manual. (In process) 4. Appointment of a formal review committee and scheduling of informal “Input
Sessions” to discuss proposed policies and procedures. (In process) 5. Drafting policy topics pertinent to the Department of Justice (DOJ) Consent
Decree, pursuant to a time- line established in collaboration with the Compliance Coordination Team. (Pending) 6. Drafting of policy topics not pertinent to the DOJ Consent Decree. (Pending) 7. Publication of the “new” General Order Manual for distribution by January 1, 2006. (Pending)3
The Strategic Management Bureau’s team assigned to implement and oversee the MOA Directives requirements has prepared an Action Plan which details the steps and actions that will guide this effort. (This Action Plan has been made available to the U.S. Department of Justice and the Independent Monitor as a part of the Appendix to this report).
Disparity In Use of Force Reports Update
The PGPD began an extraordinary effort during this reporting period to address the “Disparity in Use of Force Reports” area of concern, identified in the Independent Monitor’s 2nd. Quarterly Report. The PGPD initiated a comprehensive review of its Use of Force Reporting System under the leadership of the Deputy Chief of the Bureau of Professional Responsibility. This review focuses on the following areas:
3 Prince George’s County Police Department Action Plan memorandum dated December 22, 2004 – “Prince George’s County Police Department Policy/Directive System”.
6

1. The feasibility of adopting a universal Use of Force form to be completed by police officers that use force
2. Tracking each Use of Force Report using a Central Complaint Number issued by the Computer Aided Dispatch System
3. Adhering to applicable State law mandated Records Retention Schedules, and maintaining each use of force incident in a central repository
4. Ensuring that each Use of Force incident is properly entered into and processed through the Department’s Early Identification System
In order to facilitate these focus areas, the PGPD established a Use of Force Reporting Committee, which is comprised of a broad cross-section of Department personnel. The Committee has held several work sessions and will be preparing a report of recommendations for the approval of the Chief of Police in January 2005. Once approved, these recommendations will be implemented by the Department.
The PGPD also distributed a memorandum dated October 20, 2004, from the Chief of Police. This memorandum was directed to all PGPD Commanders/Directors informing them to brief their personnel that “effective immediately ALL Commanders Information Reports regarding the use of force being faxed to the Internal Affairs Division, as well as to Captain James, the Compliance Coordinator”.
Finally, the Deputy Chief of the Bureau of Professional Responsibility has prepared an Action Plan which details and outlines the steps, efforts and actions that are being taken to address this issue by the Department. (This Action Plan has been made available to the U.S. Department of Justice and the Independent Monitor as a part of the Appendix to this report).
Other Significant Update Efforts
It is important to note that the PGPD has engaged in many other efforts designed to continue to proactively address the requirements of the MOA. Some of those efforts are outlined in this section of the Executive Summary.
During this reporting period the PGPD has had two Monthly meetings with the Independent Monitor, and representatives from the Department of Justice. These meetings have been very helpful to all parties as critical issues are identified and recommended resolutions are proposed in order to progressively move the implementation process forward. These meetings are also helpful to the parties in understanding the challenges that are faced by a local law enforcement agency implementing reform changes mandated by a federal government agency, while those reforms are monitored by a private industry entity, yet the local law enforcement agency is challenged to continue its day to day primary mission of preventing and solving crime issues, and proactively serving and protecting its citizens and residents.
In November 2004, the PGPD established a Communications Committee to handle the public relations challenges of the MOA and the Consent Decree. This committee is responsible for both internal and external communications and public education.
7

Another significant effort that has made tremendous strides during this reporting period has been the partnerships and working relationships that have been established between the Police Departme nt and several other County Government agencies. The County Executive and the Chief Administrative Officer have pledged to use all available Prince George’s County resources to assist the PGPD in successfully implementing the requirements of both the MOA and the Consent Decree. These partnerships have resulted in providing transportation and funding for PGPD members to attend site visits in three different states; provided for enhancing the parameters of the current contract for the Mobile Crisis Team that assists the police with mental health professionals trained to handle cases involving the mentally ill; and provided a Management Information Systems Coordinator to assist with the implementation of the Early Identification system requirements of the MOA and the Consent Decree. These measures are just a few of the many efforts which have been undertaken by the Police Department during this reporting period.
By continuing to take a proactive approach and incorporating all the available resources, the Prince George’s County Police Department is continuing to make progress toward achieving its goal of being in substantial compliance with all the requirements of the Memorandum of Agreement, and the Consent Decree, while building a more professional and accountable Police Department dedicated to serving the citizens and residents of Prince George’s County.
Paragraph #107 of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) requires the Prince George’s County Police Department to report its progress on implementing the provisions of this document. The remainder of this report will focus on the progress made on specific requirements during the second quarter that the MOA has been in effect. NOTE: Section I – Background, General Provisions, and Definitions will not be reflected in this report. Section VIII – Only those paragraphs that pertain to actions to be performed by the PGPD will be reflected in this report.
8

Section II – GENERAL POLICY ON RESPONDING TO INCIDENTS INVOLVING MENTALLY ILL PERSONS.
33. In all appropriate cases involving a mentally ill person, the responding officer will file a request for an Emergency Petition for an In-Patient Evaluation. The PGPD will continue employment of its mental health care professionals that makes such professionals available to assist the PGPD with on site interactions with persons who are mentally ill. The PGPD agrees to continue to provide forty hours training on crisis intervention and dealing with mentally disordered individuals as part of its police academy recruit curriculum. Within six months from the date of this Agreement, the PGPD will supplement its current police mobile-based crisis team. This team will, at a minimum, consist of personnel who are highly motivated and attend annual in-service training by mental health professionals to improve their conflict resolution and situational de-escalation techniques. The PGPD will make best efforts to secure the voluntary services of team members who are also sworn police officers. Members of this team will be available to respond to assist patrol officers deal with mentally ill subjects. The team shall have primary responsibility for dealing with the situation, unless there is a need for quick action.
Compliance Implementation Summary: This paragraph of the MOA was assigned to the Psychological Services - Subject Matter Team for follow-up action.The Subject Matter Team has continued to work on devising appropriate strategies for implementing the requirements of this paragraph.
During the current reporting period a revised general order policy has been drafted to provide police officers with the procedures for responding to and assisting mentally ill persons and requesting an emergency petition in the appropriate cases.
The Department is also in the process of developing an in-service curriculum for the 2005 In-Service Training session which will focus on re-orienting our officers on the appropriate procedures for “Responding and Handling cases involving the Mentally Ill”. This curriculum will consist of a basic course for all sworn officers, and an advanced curriculum will be offered to volunteers who have completed the basic course. The basic will be taught by personnel from the Psychological Services Division, and other mental health professionals. The advanced course for volunteer police officers will be delivered through a partnership with the Montgomery County MD Police Department, which has been offering an advanced course on handling the mentally ill to its personnel. Several Prince George’s County Police Department personnel have also attended this course during 2004. This strategy is designed to better equip our police officers for responding and making the best decisions possible when encountering those incidents involving the mentally ill.
The PGPD has also has also worked diligently with the Price George’s County department of Family Services – Mental Health Division to ensure that the services offered by the Mobile Crisis Team is available on a twenty- four (24) hour basis.
Compliance Documentation: DRAFT General Order Policy - Section(s) 4/242. DRAFT document: “Police Officers Guide for handling Incidents involving Mentally Ill Persons Revised County Memorandum of Agreement with the Mobile Crisis Team provider, Matrixx.
9

Section III – USE OF FORCE POLICIES.
34. The PGPD will review and revise its use of force policies as necessary to:
a. Define terms clearly. b. Define force as that term is defined in this Agreement; c. Incorporate a use of force model that teaches disengagement, area containment, surveillance,
waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements or calling in specialized units as appropriate responses to a situation; d. advise that, whenever possible, individuals should be allowed to submit to arrest before force is used; e. Reinforce that the use of excessive force will subject officers to discipline, possible criminal prosecution, and/or civil liability. f. Ensure that sufficient less lethal alternatives are available to all patrol officers. g. explicitly prohibit the use of choke holds and similar carotid holds except where deadly force is authorized.
Once the DOJ has reviewed and approved these policies, the PGPD shall immediately implement any revisions.
Compliance Implementation Summary: This provision of paragraph 34 of the MOA was assigned to the Community Policing Institute – Subject Matter Team for implementation. The current Use of Force Training Guide and curriculum reflect the techniques and tactics described in the requirements. The General Orders on the Use of Force have been redrafted to reflect the requirements in the MOA.
On December 21, 2004, the PGPD and the Office of the County Attorney sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice regarding a recommendation concerning item (g) of paragraph 34 of the MOA. The PGPD and the Office of the County Attorney have proposed to insert language in the PGPD Use of Force Policies, specifically prohibiting the use of choke holds and similar carotid holds by its police officers. This proposal does not incorporate the MOA’s extended requirement in item (g) which makes an exception to allow the use of choke holds and similar carotid holds in those instances where deadly force is authorized. The PGPD is awaiting a response from the USDOJ on this issue
The PGPD is also addressing the Independent Monitors comments from the 2nd. Quarterly Report, regarding the use of terminology in the Use of Force policy which defines “aggressive, excessive, and unnecessary force” as variations of its Use of force policy. An opinion on removal or redefinition of these terms is being sought from the PGPD’s attorney assigned from the Office of law.
Compliance Documentation: RE-DRAFTED portions of General Order Manual (GOM) Vol. 3 Section(s) 3/900, 3/901, 3/902, 3/905. Prince George’s County Police Department’s - Use of Force Training Guide.
10

35. The PGPD will revise and augment its OC policy to:
a. define all terms clearly;
b. limit the use of OC to only those cases in which such force is necessary to protect the officer, the subject, or another party from physical harm, or is necessary to effectuate the arrest of an actively resisting subject, or prevent the escape of that subject;
c. continue to prohibit the use of OC in passive, civil demonstrations;
d. reinforce the prohibition against using OC spray in crowded areas;
e. provide that OC may be used only when verbal commands and other techniques that do not require the use-of- force would be ineffective, or where issuing verbal commands would present a danger to the officer or others;
f. require, that unless it would present a danger to the officers or others, a verbal warning to the subject that OC will be used must be issued prior to use, and that, where feasible, the officer will defer using OC a reasonable time to allow the subject to comply with the warning;
g. require officers to target only the subject’s face and upper torso when using hand-held OC canisters;
h. provide guidance regarding the proper duration of a burst of OC and the distance from which it is applied;
i. require that, absent exceptional circumstances, officers will offer to decontaminate every subject exposed to OC within twenty minutes of the application of OC;
j. require that officers request medical response or medical assistance for subjects exposed to OC when they complain of continued effects after having been de-contaminated, or they indicate that they have a pre-existing medical condition (e.g., asthma, emphysema, bronchitis, heart ailment, etc.) that may be aggravated by OC;
k. Require that officers remove a subject exposed to OC from a face down position as soon as it is safe to do so; and;
l. provide that OC may be used on a restrained subject only when, absent the use of OC, the subject or another person is likely to suffer injury, or escape.
Once the DOJ has reviewed and approved these revisions, the PGPD shall immediately implement the revisions.
Compliance Implementation Summary: The provisions of this MOA paragraph were determined to be within the General Order sections provided to the Independent Monitor during their second site visit in October 2004, and the Monitor has determined that the PGPD has achieved a “Pending Compliance” assessment for this paragraph of the MOA. The Department has begun to reorganize and reformat the content of this general order to ensure that it is more logically orga nized and provides clear and sufficient direction for officers and supervisors in the field. This work is being done by the newly formed Policy Development Working Group.
Compliance Documentation: General Order Manual (GOM) Vol.3 Section(s) 3/906/10, 3/906.15, and 3/906.20. RE-DRAFTED PGPD Community Policing Institute – O.C. Spray Lesson Plan.
11

36. The parties agree that the PGPD shall continue to require officers to notify their supervisor whenever they discharge OC. The PGPD shall continue to require supervisors to document the incident on a Commander’s Information Report. In addition, the supervisor shall record the basis for discharging OC, including the reason for the level of force used; the duration of the discharge; and an estimate of the distance at which the discharge occurred.
Compliance Implementation Summary: The provisions of this MOA paragraph were determined to be within the General Order sections provided to the Independent Monitor during their second site visit in October 2004, and the Monitor has determined that the PGPD has achieved a Phase I “Pending Compliance” assessment for this paragraph of the MOA. During the January 2005 site-visit, the Independent Monitor will follow the approval process to determine if this policy has been promulgated.
Compliance Documentation: GOM Vol.3 Section 3/903, 3/903.10, and 3/906.25
37. The PGPD will require that all uses of spray against a restrained person be reviewed by the officer’s supervisor, who must, where feasible, take tape-recorded statements from the officer and subject. The PGPD will make best efforts to take tape-recorded statements from other witnesses and third parties. These reviews will be evaluated and signed by the BPR.
Compliance Implementation Summary: The provisions of this MOA paragraph were determined to be within the General Order sections provided to the Independent Monitor during their second site visit in October 2004, and the Monitor has determined that the PGPD has achieved a Phase I “Pending Compliance” assessment for this paragraph of the MOA. During the January 2005 site-visit, the Independent Monitor will follow the approval process to determine if this policy has been promulgated.
Compliance Documentation: GOM Vol. 3 Section 3/906.20 Bureau of Professional Responsibility (BPR) - Internal Affairs Division - Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), page #7, item C10.
38. The PGPD will provide regular in-service training on the proper amount of OC to use, how to deliver OC effectively, and the proper anatomical targets for OC.
Compliance Implementation Summary: The provisions of this MOA paragraph were determined to be within the General Order sections provided to the Independent Monitor during their second site visit in October 2004, and the Monitor has determined that the PGPD has achieved a Phase I “Pending Compliance” assessment for this paragraph of the MOA. During the January 2005 site-visit, the Independent Monitor will follow the approval process to determine if this policy has been promulgated.
Compliance Documentation: GOM Vol. 6 Section 6/204.15 Prince George’s County Police Department’s - Community Policing Institute (CPI) OC Spray Lesson Plan.
12

39. The PGPD will continue to maintain an accounting of the number of chemical spray canisters annually distribut ed to and utilized by each officer. Additionally, the PGPD will maintain an accounting of OC foam dispensers and ammunition used in pepperball launchers.
Compliance Implementation Summary: The provisions of this MOA paragraph were determined to be within the General Order sections provided to the Independent Monitor during their second site visit in October 2004, and the Monitor has determined that the PGPD has achieved a Phase I “Pending Compliance” assessment for this paragraph of the MOA. During the January 2005 site-visit, the Independent Monitor will follow the approval process to determine if this policy has been promulgated.
Compliance Documentation: GOM Vol. 3 Section 3/906.15.
Section IV – EVALUATION, DOCUMENTATION, AND REVIEW OF USE OF FORCE.
40. Officers shall notify their supervisors following any use of force or upon the receipt of an allegation of excessive force. Except for those instances in which the only use of force is a canine deployment, supervisors will respond to the scene, examine the subject for injury, interview the subject for complaints of pain, and ensure that the subject receives needed medical attention.
Compliance Imp lementation Summary: The provisions of this MOA paragraph were determined to be within the General Order sections provided to the Independent Monitor during their second site visit in October 2004, and the Monitor has determined that the PGPD has achieved a Phase I “Pending Compliance” assessment for this paragraph of the MOA.
This MOA paragraph has been assigned to the newly formed Use of Force Reporting Committee in order to ensure that all the requirements of this paragraph are consistent with the other MOA and PGPD policies regarding the reporting of all Use of Force incidents. The Use of Force Reporting Committee has developed a Use of Force Reporting form to be completed by all personnel using any type of force. The Use of force form, a checklist, and instructions are in the process of being finalized and reviewed by the appropriate stakeholders prior to the approval of the Chief of Police.
Compliance Documentation: GOM Vol. 3 Section 3/903, 3/903.10 DRAFT USE of Force Forms
41. Supervisors will review, evaluate, and document each use of force, and will prepare a Commander’s Information Report (“CIR”). The CIR will include a precise description of the facts and circumstances that either justify or fail to justify the officer’s conduct. As part of this review, the supervisor will evaluate the basis for the use of force, and determine whether the officer’s actions were within PGPD policy. An officer who used force during the incident, or whose conduct led to an injury, or who authorized conduct leading to the use of force or allegation of excessive force will not be eligible to review the incident.
Compliance Implementation Summary: The Independent Monitor’s comments regarding this paragraph focused on the fact that the policies that were reviewed during their second site- visit made no mention of the requirement that “the precise description of the facts and circumstances of the event’ particularly delineates the justification or the failure to justify the officer’s conduct. The PGPD has drafted a revision to incorporate this provision into the general order addressing this MOA paragraph
13

Compliance Documentation: GOM Vol. 3 Section 3/903, 3/903.05, RE-DRAFTED portions of 3/903.10.
42. BPR will respond to the scene of all serious uses of force. Serious uses of force are: all uses of force resulting in death; all uses of force by an officer resulting in a broken bone or an injury requiring hospitalization; all uses of force resulting in a loss of consciousness or creating a substantial risk of death, serious disfigurement, or disability; all incidents where a person receives a bite from a departmental canine; and all critical firearm discharges. The BPR will be required to review and evaluate in writing the supervisor’s performance reviews of such uses of force.
Compliance Implementation Summary: The provisions of this MOA paragraph were determined to be within the Bureau of Professional Responsibility – Special Investigative Response Team (SIRT) Standard Operating Procedure provided to the Independent Monitor during their second site visit in October 2004, and the Monitor has determined that the PGPD has achieved a Phase I “Pending Compliance” assessment in the Draft 2nd. Quarterly Report, however, inadvertently determined that this paragraph of the MOA was in “Not in Compliance” in the final report., however the Independent Monitor indicated in the final report that during the January 2005 site- visit, the y will follow the approval process to determine if this policy has been promulgated.
Compliance Documentation: BPR – Special Investigative Response Team’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), page #4, Investigative Responsibility.
43. The parties agree that it is improper interview procedure to ask officers or other witnesses leading questions during use of force reviews that improperly suggest legal justifications for the officer’s conduct when such questions are contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques. In each review, the PGPD will consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility Determinations, if feasible. The PGPD will make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements. The PGPD will train all of its supervisors on the factors to consider when evaluating credibility.
Compliance Implementation Summary: This paragraph was assigned to the Bureau of Professional Responsibility (BPR) – Subject Matter Team and the Community Policing Institute – Subject Matter Team for implementation. The BPR’s Standard Operating Procedure was revised to address this requirement of the MOA.
During this reporting period, the PGPD finalized a curriculum entitled “Internal Investigations”. This curriculum is a joint effort between the BPR and CPI subject matter teams to ensure that the MOA requirements pertinent to Internal Administrative Investigations are taught to all supervisors. Training on this curriculum is scheduled to begin in January 2005, and will be given to all PGPD supervisors.
Compliance Documentation: BPR – Internal Affairs Division – Standard Operating Procedure, pages # 10, 11, and 12, items I6, I7, I14, I22. BPR/CPI Joint Training Curriculum/Lesson Plan entitled: “Internal Investigations”.
14

44. Supervisors shall conduct a performance review of all uses of force or an injury resulting from a use of force by any officer under their command. In a performance review, supervisors shall interview all witnesses to a use of force or an injury resulting from a use of force. Consistent with the requirements of LEOBR, PGPD supervisors (or BPR as appropriate) shall ensure that all officer witnesses provide a statement regarding the incident. Supervisors (or BPR as appropriate) shall ensure that all use of force reports identify all officers who were involved in the incident or were on the scene when it occurred. Supervisors (or BPR as appropriate) shall ensure that all reports indicate whether an injury occurred, whether medical care was provided, and whether the subject refused medical treatment. Supervisors (or BPR as appropriate) shall ensure that all reports include contemporaneous photographs or videotapes taken of all injuries at the earliest practicable opportunity, both before and after any treatment, including cleansing of wounds.
Compliance Implementation Summary: This paragraph was assigned to the Bureau of Professional Responsibility (BPR) – Subject Matter Team for implementation. The provisions of this MOA paragraph were determined to be within the PGPD Administrative Investigations Guide, Appendix E. During the January 2005 site-visit, the Independent Monitor will follow the approval process to determine if this policy has been promulgated. Compliance Documentation: PGPD Administrative Investigations Guide, page #58, Appendix E.
45. The District or unit Commander will evaluate each performance review conducted by supervisors, identify any deficiencies in those reviews, and require supervisors to correct any deficiencies. Supervisors will be held accountable for the quality of their reviews. Appropriate non-disciplinary corrective action and/or disciplinary action will be taken when a supervisor fails to conduct a timely and thorough review, or neglects to recommend appropriate corrective action, or neglects to properly implement appropriate corrective action.
Compliance Implementation Summary: This paragraph was assigned to the Bureau of Professional Responsibility, and the Patrol Services Bureau – Subject Matter Team(s) for implementation. The Independent Monitor has determined that the PGPD revised its General Order policies to incorporate the provisions of this MOA paragraph. During the January 2005 site- visit, the Independent Monitor will follow the approval process to determine if this policy has been promulgated.
Compliance Documentation: GOM Vol. 3 Section 3/903.15
46. The PGPD will investigate or review as appropriate all critical firearm discharges. The PGPD will ensure that the investigation or review accounts for all shots and the locations of all officers who discharged their firearms. The PGPD will conduct all ballistic or crime scene analyses, including gunshot residue or bullet trajectory tests, as appropriate.
Compliance Implementation Summary: This paragraph of the MOA was assigned to the Bureau of Professional Responsibility – Subject Matter Team for implementation. The Independent Monitor has determined that the PGPD has incorporated the provisions of this MOA paragraph into its General Order Manual and the SIRT Standard Operating Procedure. During the January 2005 site-visit, the Independent Monitor will follow the approval process to determine if this policy has been promulgated.
Compliance Documentation:
15

BPR – Special Investigative Response Team SOP, page #8. GOM Vol. 3 Section(s) 3/916, 3/918.
47. The PGPD will create a special board to review all critical firearm discharges. The board will review each BPR investigation and supervisor’s performance review (if applicable) of a critical firearm discharge for compliance with PGPD policy, as well as for tactical and training implications. The board’s review will include investigative files and interviews of the principal investigators and/or supervisors. Following its review, the board will prepare a report for the Chief of Police. The report will be made a part of the complete PGPD file regarding the incident, and it will include a description of the incident (including all uses of force); a summary and analysis of all relevant evidence; proposed findings; and analysis to support those findings. In particular, the board will determine: a)whether all uses of force during the encounter were consistent with PGPD policy and training; b) whether the officer(s) involved employed proper tactics; and c) whether lesser force alternatives reasonably were available. Membership on the board will rotate, but will at least include a member of the PGPD command staff, a Training Academy representative, the affected Bureau Commander and an attorney from the County Attorney’s office.
Compliance Implementation Summary: The Independent Monitor has determined that the PGPD has incorporated the provisions of this MOA paragraph into its General Order Manual. During the January 2005 site- visit, the Independent Monitor will follow the approval process to determine if this policy has been promulgated.
Compliance Documentation: GOM Vol. 3 Section 3/919, 3/919.25
48. The PGPD policy that defines the Firearm Discharge Review Board’s role will:
a. require the board, absent exceptional circumstances, to review within 90 days of the end of all criminal reviews of the incident, all critical firearm discharges;
b. set forth the membership of the board;
c. authorize the board to recommend to the Chief of Police that non-disciplinary corrective action be taken;
d. require the board to act as a quality control mechanism for all shooting or firearm discharge investigations, with responsibility to return to the investigating unit all incomplete or mishandled shooting or firearm discharge investigations and/or supervisor’s performance reviews;
e. charge the board with the authority and responsibility to recommend to the Chief of Police investigative protocols and standards for all critical firearm discharge investigations and/or supervisor’s performance reviews; and
f. require the board annually to review each critical firearm discharge to detect patterns and/or problems and to report its findings and recommendations to the Chief of Police.
Compliance Implementation Summary: This paragraph of the MOA was assigned to the Bureau of Professional Responsibility, and the Policy Research – Subject Matter Team(s) for implementation. The Independent Monitor has determined that the PGPD has incorporated the majority of the provisions of this MOA paragraph into its General Order Manual, however; item (48e) was not appropriately addressed. The PGPD has re-drafted this General Order policy to incorporate appropriate language for item (48e).
Compliance Documentation: RE-DRAFT portions of - GOM Vol. 3 Section 3/919.10, 3/919.25
16

Section V - Training
49. The PGPD will coordinate and review all use of force policy and training to ensure quality, consistency, and compliance with applicable law and PGPD policy. The PGPD will conduct regular subsequent reviews, at least semi-annually.
Compliance Implementation Summary: This paragraph of the MOA was assigned to the Community Policing Institute – Subject Matter Team for Implementation. The mandated reviews are being conducted by the PGPD. Supervisory and Command review are already in place for all curricula to include all Use of Force lesson plans. The Independent Monitor has determined that the PGPD has incorporated all the provisions of this MO A paragraph into its General Order Manual and the Community Policing Institute Standard Operating Procedure.
Compliance Documentation: GOM Vol. 6 Section 204.05 PGPD Community Policing Institute’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), Chapter #1, page #3.
50. The Director of the Academy, either directly or through his/her designee(s), consistent with Maryland law and the Maryland Police and Correctional Training Commission standards, will:
a. ensure the quality of all use-of- force training; b. develop and implement use-of- force training curricula; c. select and train PGPD officer trainers; d. develop, implement, approve, and oversee all in-service training; e. develop, implement, approve, and oversee a patrol division roll call protocol designed to
effectively inform officers of relevant changes in policies and procedures; f. establish procedures for evaluating all training curricula and procedures; and g. conduct regular needs assessments to ensure that use-of- force training is responsive to the
knowledge, skills, and abilities of the officers being trained.
Compliance Implementation Summary: This paragraph of the MOA was assigned to the Community Policing Institute – Subject Matter Team for implementation. The Independent Monitor has determined that the PGPD has incorporated all the provisions of this MOA paragraph into its General Order Manual and the Community Policing Institute Standard Operating Procedure.
Compliance Documentation: GOM Vol. 6, Section 6/204.10 PGPD Community Policing Institute’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), Chapter 1, pages 3 – 4; Chapter 5, pages 1 – 3; Chapter #10, page 3; Chapter 19, pages 2 – 4, 5 – 6, Chapter 25, pages 1, 7.
51. The PGPD will provide training consistent with PGPD policy, law, and proper police practices, and will ensure that only mandated objectives and approved lesson plans are taught by instructors. The PGPD will make best efforts to train each work shift as a team in their use of force training.
17

Compliance Implementation Summary: This paragraph of the MOA was assigned to the Community Policing Institute – Subject Matter Team for implementation. The requirements of this paragraph are currently being met. All lesson plans are designed and taught to meet the objectives as established by the Maryland Police and Corrections Training Commission (MPCTC). MPCTC conducts biennial audits, with the last inspection conducted on October 2003. The CPI received a 100% compliance rate. Unit training for each work shift is conducted by the Department whenever the required manpower resources are in place to permit the agency to replace entire work units from all operational components and still fulfill the full service requirements of the Department, within the community. The Independent Monitor has determined that the PGPD has incorporated all the provisions of this MOA paragraph into its General Order Manual and the Community Policing Institute Standard Operating Procedure.
Compliance Documentation: GOM Vol. 6, Section 6/204.10 PGPD Community Policing Institute’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), Chapter 1, pages 2 – 4; Chapter #3, page 5; Chapter #10, page 2 - 3; Chapter 19, pages 2 – 5; Chapter 25, pages 1 - 2, 6 - 7.
52. The PGPD shall keep adequate records of lesson plans and other training materials, such that the most current training documents are maintained in a central, commonly accessible file, and are clearly dated.
Compliance Implementation Summary: This paragraph of the MOA was assigned to the Community Policing Institute – Subject Matter Team for implementation. The team has determined that all lesson plans are currently kept in clearly dated, commonly accessible location. Copies of all lesson plans, handouts, and testing materials are all kept on file. If a lesson plan incorporates a presentation via a computer program, those presentations are also maintained. This helps to ensure consistent training for each officer. The PGPD has drafted a letter to the Office of the County Attorney requesting guidance regarding the Independent Monitors concerns about the relocation of all Canine and EST training records in light of the Consent Decree, which addresses to Canine and EST Sections, and is monitored by the U.S. Department of Justice.
Compliance Documentation: GOM Vol. 6, Section 6/205.05 PGPD Community Policing Institute’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), Chapter 1, pages 3 – 4; Chapter #3, page 5; Chapter #10, page 2 - 3; Chapter 19, pages 4 – 5; Chapter 25, pages 1 – 2. Copy of Letter to the County Attorney.
53. The PGPD shall maintain training records regarding every PGPD officer which reliably indicate the training each officer has received. The training records shall, at a minimum, include the course description and duration, curriculum, and instructor for each officer.
Compliance Implementation Summary: This paragraph of the MOA was assigned to the Community Policing Institute – Subject Matter Team for implementation. The team determined that the requirements of this paragraph are currently being conducted by two separate methods. The MPCTC Skills Manager program that is required for record keeping and tracking of officer training, and via the individual files maintained on each PGPD officer which contain reporting forms and testing originals. Recruit training records are maintained using the MPCTC computerized “training manager” program. The Independent Monitor has determined that the PGPD has incorporated all the provisions of this MOA paragraph into its General Order Manual and the Community Policing Institute Standard Operating Procedure
18

Compliance Documentation: GOM Vol. 6, Section 6/204.10 PGPD Community Policing Institute’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), Chapter 1, pages 3 – 4; Chapter #10, page 2; Chapter 19, page 5; Chapter 25, page 19.
54. Either as a subcommittee of the existing Training Committee or as a stand-alone committee, the PGPD will form a curriculum and policy committee that will include core Academy staff, a broad crosssection of field personnel, PGPD command staff, and a representative of the County Attorney’s office. The committee will review all use of force training and use of force policies on a regular basis to ensure compliance with applicable laws and PGPD policy. The Chief of Police, in consultation with the County Executive, has decided to charge the committee with exploring best use of force practices and innovations. The committee will report its findings and recommendations in writing to the Chief of Police on an annual basis.
Compliance Implementation Summary: This paragraph of the MOA was assigned to the Community Policing Institute – Subject Matter Team for implementation. This committee was established as directed by the MOA. The Independent Monitor has determined that the PGPD has incorporated all the provisions of this MOA paragraph into its General Order Manual and the Community Policing Institute Standard Operating Procedure
Compliance Documentation: GOM Vol. 6, Section 6/201.10. PGPD Community Policing Institute’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), Chapter 1, page 3.
55. The PGPD will continue to provide all recruits, officers, supervisors, and managers with annual training on use of force. Such training will include and address the following topics:
a. the PGPD’s use-of- force model, as described in this Agreement;
b. proper use-of-force decision- making;
c. the PGPD’s use-of- force reporting requirements;
d. the Fourth Amendment and other constitutional requirements;
e. examples of scenarios faced by PGPD officers that illustrate proper use-of-force decisionmaking;
f. interactive exercises that emphasize proper use of force decision- making;
g. the proper amount of OC to use, how to deliver OC effectively, and the proper anatomical targets for OC;
h. de-escalation techniques that encourage officers to make arrests without using force, and instruction that disengagement, area containment, surveillance, waiting out a subject, summoning reinforcements, calling in specialized units, or delaying arrest may be the appropriate response to a situation even when the use-of- force would be legally justified;
i. additional training to its officers on alternate safe techniques for extracting subjects from stationary vehicles and disabling such vehicles;
j. threat assessment;
k. factors to consider in initiating or continuing a pursuit; and
l. appropriate training on conflict management.
19

Compliance Implementation Summary: This provision of paragraph 55 of the MOA was assigned to the Community Policing Institute – Subject Matter Team for implementation. A new General Order policy was designed to incorporate the provisions of this MOA requirement. The Independent Monitor has determined that the PGPD has incorporated all the provisions of this MOA paragraph into its General Order Manual policy.
Compliance Documentation: GOM Vol. 6, Sectio n 6/205.15
56. The PGPD will provide training to all its officers on the PGPD citizen complaint process, including the role of the CCOP and the BPR in the process. The PGPD will develop a protocol for all its officers on appropriate conduct and responses in handling citizens’ complaints and will train officers in the protocol.
Compliance Implementation Summary: This paragraph was assigned to the Bureau of Professional Responsibility, and the Community Policing Institute – Subject Matter Team(s) for implementation. The training required by this paragraph is being developed as a separate block of training for all sworn police officers
Compliance Documentation: Pending.
57. The PGPD will provide training on appropriate burdens of proof to all supervisors, as well as the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility (to ensure that their recommendations regarding dispositions are unbiased, uniform, and legally appropriate). The PGPD will also provide training to supervisors on leadership and command accountability, including techniques designed to promote proper police practices. This training will be provided to all officers promoted to supervisory rank within 90 days of assuming supervisory responsibilities, and will be made part of annual in-service training.
Compliance Implementation Summary: This paragraph was assigned to the Bureau of Professional Responsibility (BPR), and the Community Policing Institute (CPI) – Subject Matter Team(s) for implementation. During this reporting period, the PGPD completed the formulation of a curriculum entitled Internal Investigations. This curriculum is a joint effort between the BPR and CPI subject matter teams to ensure that the MOA requirements pertinent to Internal Administrative Investigations are taught to all supervisors. Training on this curriculum is scheduled to begin in January 2005, and will be given to all PGPD supervisors. The Independent Monitor has determined that the PGPD has incorporated all the provisions of this MOA paragraph into its General Order Manual and the appropriate Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).
Compliance Documentation: BPR/CPI Joint Training Curriculum/Lesson Plan entitled: “Internal Investigations”. PGPD Community Policing Institute’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), Chapter 19, pages 7 – 8.
58. Within 120 days of the effective date of this Agreement, the PGPD will develop a protocol, subject to the approval of DOJ, to enhance the FTO program. The protocol shall address the criteria and method for selecting FTOs, the training provided to FTOs to perform their duties, the length of time that probationary officers spend in the program, the assignment of probationary officers to FTOs, the substance of the training provided by the FTOs, and the evaluation of probationary officer performance by the FTOs. The protocol will also set standards that require the appropriate assessment of an officer’s past complaint and disciplinary history before an officer is selected to serve as an FTO. FTO appointments will be subject to
20

review for reappointment at the discretion of the Director of the Academy or the Commander of the Training and Education Division. District commanders will also have discretion, upon consultation with the Academy staff, to remove an officer from the FTO program.
Compliance Implementation Summary: This paragraph of the MOA was assigned to the Community Policing Institute – Subject Matter Team for implementation. The Basic Training Section of CPI, has completed the development of an FTO protocol in order to enhance the FTO program. The objective is to fully comply with the DOJ requirements while using this opportunity as an impetus to upgrade the current program. On September 30, 2004, the FTO Protocol, and the FTO Manual, along with the FTO General Order policy were sent to USDOJ for review and approval.
Compliance Documentation: RE-DRAFTED portions of GOM Vol. 6, Section 6/206. PGPD Community Policing Institute’s Field Training Officer’s Manual, pages 6, 7, 10, 20-24, 27, 36 – 39. PGPD Community Policing Institute’s Field Training Officer’s Protocol, pages 1, 6, 12, 13, 20 – 30.
59. FTOs will be reviewed when an Academy class graduates, with re-certification dependent on satisfactory prior performance and feedback from the Academy and the FTO’s District Commander.
Compliance Implementation Summary: This paragraph of the MOA was assigned to the Community Policing Institute – Subject Matter Team for implementation. The Basic Training Section of CPI, has completed the development of an FTO protocol in order to enhance the FTO program. The objective is to fully comply with the DOJ requirements while using this opportunity as an impetus to upgrade the current program. On September 30, 2004, the FTO Protocol, and the FTO Manual, along with the FTO General Order policy were sent to USDOJ for review and approval.
Compliance Documentation: RE-DRAFTED portions of GOM Vol. 6, Section 6/206. PGPD Community Policing Institute’s Field Training Officer Manual, pages 16, 25, and 26.
Section VI - RECEIPT, INVESTIGATION, AND REVIEW OF MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS
60. The County and the PGPD will continue their programs to inform persons that they may file complaints regarding the performance of any officer.
Compliance Implementation Summary: This paragraph of the MOA was assigned to the Bureau of Professional Responsibility – Subject Matter Team for implementation. This team determined that the Department currently performs this requirement. The Department implemented a “Police Accountability” project which provides for the placement of Placards at all police District Stations. These placards describe the process for filing a complaint against a Prince George’s County police officer. Bilingual brochures are also being made available though this project. A video-tape describing the complaint process is also available to the community from all police District Stations. The Independent Monitor has determined that the PGPD has met the requirements of this MOA paragraph. The Independent Monitor will follow the approval process to determine if this policy has been promulgated during the January 2005 site- visit. Compliance Documentation: GOM Vol. 3, Section 3/810.10 BPR – Police Accountability Project items; placards, brochures, videotapes.
21

61. The County will make complaint forms and informational materials available at all PGPD district stations, libraries, the internet, and, upon request, to community groups and community centers. At each PGPD district station, the PGPD will permanently post a placard describing the comp laint process and include the relevant phone numbers. The PGPD will require all officers to carry informational brochures in their vehicles at all times while on duty. If a citizen objects to an officer’s conduct, that officer will inform the citizen of his or her right to make a complaint. Officers will not discourage any person from making a complaint.
Compliance Implementation Summary: This paragraph of the MOA was assigned to the Bureau of Professional Responsibility, and the Policy Research – Subject Matter Team(s) for implementation. This team determined that the Department currently performs this requirement. The Independent Monitor has determined that the PGPD has met the requirements of this MOA paragraph. The Independent Monitor will follow the approval process to determine if this policy has been promulgated during the January 2005 site- visit.
Compliance Documentation: GOM Vol. 3, Section 3/810.10 BPR – Police Accountability Project items; placards, brochures, videotapes.
62. Except for complaints alleging brutality, complaints may be filed in writing or verbally, in person or by mail, telephone (or TDD), facsimile or electronic mail. In cases where a complaint asserts only the individual’s contention of innocence of a charge, without any allegation of misconduct by the officer, the complainant will be advised to seek judicial redress through established court procedures. In all other cases, the duty officer at the front desk of each district station will be authorized to take complaints, including third-party complaints, which persons may file at any district station. Complaint intake officers may describe facts that bear upon a complainant’s demeanor and physical condition, but may not express opinions regarding his/her mental competency or veracity. Complaint forms shall be readily available at all precincts. A complaint form will be completed each time a person attempts to file a complaint as described herein. Brutality complaints will be accepted when they are notarized and filed within 90 days of the alleged brutality, consistent with the requirements of LEOBR. The PGPD shall ensure that at least one employee who holds a valid commission from the State of Maryland as a notary public is available 24 hours per day at all times to respond to the complainant’s location within a reasonable amount of time and notarize the document.
Compliance Implementation Summary: This paragraph of the MOA was assigned to the Bureau of Professional Responsibility, and the Policy Research – Subject Matter Team(s) fo r implementation. The team determined that this paragraph is currently being done by the Department. The Independent Monitor has determined that the PGPD has met the requirements of this MOA paragraph. The Independent Monitor will follow the approval process to determine if this policy has been promulgated during the January 2005 site visit.
Compliance Documentation: GOM Vol. 3 Section 3/810.15
63. Each complaint will be resolved in writing. Upon receipt at BPR, each complaint will be assigned a unique identifier, which will be provided to the complainant within 10 business days. Each complaint will be tracked according to the basis for the complaint (e.g., excessive force, discourtesy, improper search, etc.).
22

Compliance Implementation Summary: This paragraph of the MOA was assigned to the Bureau of Professional Responsibility, and the Policy Research – Subject Matter Team(s) for implementation. The teams determined that the requirements of this paragraph are contained within the Bureau of Professional Responsibility Internal Affairs Division Standard Operating Procedures. The Independent Monitor has determined that the PGPD has met the requirements of this MOA paragraph. The Independent Monitor will follow the approval process to determine if this policy has been promulgated during the January 2005 site visit.
Compliance Documentation: BPR- Internal Affairs Division (IAD), Standard Operating Procedures, page # 10, items 12, and 13.
64. The PGPD will request that the CCOP forward copies of all allegations of misconduct filed with the CCOP against the PGPD within five business days of receipt.
Compliance Implementation Summary: This paragraph of the MOA was assigned to the Bureau of Professional Responsibility – Subject Matter Team(s) for implementation. The team determined that the Department had completed the requirements mandated by this paragraph. The Department submitted a letter dated March 15, 2004 to the Citizen Compliant Oversight Panel (CCOP) requesting that all allegations of misconduct filed with the CCOP be forwarded to the Department within five (5) business days of receipt. During the first and second Quarterly visits of the Independent Monitor, it was determined that the Police Department is “In Compliance” with this requirement of the MOA.
Compliance Documentation: GOM Vol. 3, Section 3/811.40 PGPD Letter to the Citizen Complaint Oversight Panel (CCOP) dated March 15, 2004.
65. All investigations shall be conducted in accordance with the LEOBR.
Compliance Implementation Summary: This paragraph of the MOA was assigned to the Bureau of Professional Responsibility – Subject Matter Team for implementation. The requirements of this paragraph are currently being performed by the Department and are found in the General Order Manual Volume 3, Section 811.05. During the first and second Quarterly visits of the Independent Monitor, it was determined that the Police Department is “In Compliance” with this requirement of the MOA.
Compliance Documentation: GOM Vol. 3 Section 3/811.05.
66. Complaints will be evaluated based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, for which the County will develop and implement appropriate training.
Compliance Implementation Summary: This paragraph of the MOA was assigned to the Bureau of Professional Responsibility – Subject Matter Team for implementation. The team determined that the Department is currently performing the requirements of this paragraph. The Independent Monitor has determined that the PGPD has met the requirements of this MOA paragraph. The Independent Monitor will follow the approval process to determine if this policy has been promulgated during the January 2005 site visit.
Compliance Documentation: BPR – Internal Affairs Division – Standard Operating Procedure, page #16, item L-11. General Order Manual (GOM) Section 3/817.70
23

67. The PGPD will explicitly prohibit from investigating an incident any officer who used force during the incident, whose conduct led to the injury to a prisoner, or who authorized the conduct that led to these reportable incidents.
Compliance Implementation Summary: This paragraph of the MOA was assigned to the Bureau of Professional Responsibility – Subject Matter Team for implementation. The team determined that the Department has revised its General Order policies to accommodate the requirements of this paragraph. The Independent Monitor has determined that the PGPD has met the requirements of this MOA paragraph. The Independent Monitor will follow the approval process to determine if this policy has been promulgated dur ing the January 2005 site visit.
Compliance Documentation: GOM Vol.3 Section 3/903.05
68. The parties agree that in each investigation, the BPR will consider all relevant evidence including circumstantial, direct and physical evidence, as appropriate, and make credibility determinations, if feasible. The BPR will make efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between witness statements. The BPR will train all of its investigators on the factors to consider when evaluating complainant or witness credibility. The BPR will prohibit investigators, during complaint investigations, from improperly asking officers or other witnesses leading questions that improperly suggest legal justifications for the officer’s conduct when such questions are contrary to appropriate law enforcement techniques. Consistent with the requirements of LEOBR, PGPD investigators will ensure that all officers on the scene of an incident provide a statement regarding the incident.
Compliance Implementation Summary: This paragraph of the MOA was assigned to the Bureau of Professional Responsibility – Subject Matter Team for implementation. The team determined that the Department has revised its Internal Affairs Division Standard Operating Procedure to accommodate the requirements of this paragraph. The Independent Monitor has determined that the PGPD has met the requirements of this MOA paragraph. The Independent Monitor will follow the approval process to determine if this policy has been promulgated during the January 2005 site visit.
Compliance Documentation: BPR – Internal Affairs Division – Standard Operating Procedure, pages # 10, 11, and 12, items I6, I7, I14, I22.
69. During an investigation, all relevant police activity, including each use of force (i.e., the investigation will not be limited to the force complained about), will be investigated. The investigation will also evaluate any searches or seizures that occurred during the incident. The BPR will not close an investigation simply because the alleged victim is unwilling or unable to provide medical records or proof of injury; rather, the BPR will continue its investigation as necessary to determine whether the original allegation(s) can be resolved.
Compliance Implementation Summary: This paragraph of the MOA was assigned to the Bureau of Professional Responsibility – Subject Matter Team for implementation. The team determined that the Department has revised its Internal Affairs Division Standard Operating Procedure to accommodate the requirements of this paragraph. The Independent Monitor has determined that the PGPD has met the requirements of this MOA paragraph. The Independent Monitor will follow the approval process to determine if this policy has been promulgated during the January 2005 site visit.
24

Compliance Documentation: BPR – Internal Affairs Division – Standard Operating Procedure, pages # 12, item I23.
70. In conducting investigations, BPR will, subject to and in conformance with applicable law, including the LEOBR, at a minimum:
a. continue to tape record or videotape interviews of complainants, involved officers, and witnesses; b. whenever practicable and appropriate, conduct interviews of complainants and witnesses at sites and
times convenient for them, including at their residences or places of business; c. whenever practical, prohibit group interviews; d. notify the supervisors of the involved officers of the investigation, as appropriate; e. interview all appropriate PGPD officers,
including supervisors, in accordance with the requirements of the LEOBR; f. collect, preserve, and analyze all appropriate evidence, including canvassing the scene to locate
witnesses and obtain the complainant’s medical records, where appropriate; and g. identify and report, in writing, all material inconsistencies in officer and witness interview statements
gathered during the investigation.
Compliance Implementation Summary: This paragraph of the MOA was assigned to the Bureau of Professional Responsibility – Subject Matter Team for implementation. The team determined that the Department has revised its Internal Affairs Division Standard Operating Procedure to accommodate the requirements of this paragraph. The Independent Monitor has determined that the PGPD has met the requirements of this MOA paragraph. The Independent Monitor will follow the approval process to determine if this policy has been promulgated during the January 2005 site visit.
Compliance Documentation: BPR – Internal Affairs Division – Standard Operating Procedure, pages # 10, and 11, item I9 – I 15.
71. At the conclusion of each investigation, the individual responsible for the investigation will prepare a report on the investigation, which will be made a part of the investigation file. The report will include a description of the alleged misconduct and any other misconduct issues identified during the course of the investigation; a summary, and, where appropriate, analysis of all relevant evidence gathered during the investigation; and proposed findings and analysis supporting the findings. Absent exceptional circumstances, BPR will complete all investigations within 90 days after receiving the allegations.
Compliance Implementation Summary: This paragraph of the MOA was assigned to the Bureau of Professional Responsibility – Subject Matter Team for implementation. The team determined that the Department has revised its Internal Affairs Division Standard Operating Procedure to accommodate the requirements of this paragraph. The Independent Monitor has determined that the PGPD has met the requirements of this MOA paragraph. The Independent Monitor will follow the approval process to determine if this policy has been promulgated during the January 2005 site visit.
Compliance Documentation: BPR – Internal Affairs Division – Standard Operating Procedure, pages # 12, and 13, items I25 and I 29.
25

72. The complainant will be notified when the complaint is referred to the CCOP. Upon completion of the investigation and any necessary hearings required under the LEOBR, the complainant will be notified of its outcome, including an appropriate statement regarding whether any non-disciplinary corrective action or disciplinary action was taken, to the extent permitted by Maryland law.
Compliance Implementation Summary: This paragraph of the MOA was assigned to the Bureau of Professional Responsibility – Subject Matter Team for implementation. The team determined that the Department has revised its Internal Affairs Division Standard Operating Procedure to accommodate the requirements of this paragraph.
During this reporting period the PGPD was advised via email from the Office of the County Attorney that the current procedure used by the PGPD to advise complainants of the results of an investigation, but not the specifics of any discipline assessed, was proper.
Compliance Documentation: BPR – Internal Affairs Division – Standard Operating Procedure; page 13, item # I-28, page 13 – 14, item #I-34. Email from the Office of the County Attorney dated October 20, 2004.
73. Each allegation in an investiga tion will be resolved by making one of the following dispositions: a. “Unfounded,” where the investigation determined no facts to support that the incident complained of actually occurred; b. “Sustained,” where the person’s allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to determine that the incident occurred and the actions of the officer were improper; c. “Not Sustained,” where there are insufficient facts to decide whether the alleged misconduct occurred; and d. “Exonerated,” where a preponderance of the evidence shows that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate PGPD policies, procedures, or training.
Compliance Implementation Summary: This paragraph of the MOA was assigned to the Bureau of Professional Responsibility – Subject Matter Team for implementation. The team determined that the Department has revised its Internal Affairs Division Standard Operating Procedure to accommodate the requirements of this paragraph. The Independent Monitor has determined that the PGPD has met the requirements of this MOA paragraph. The Independent Monitor will follow the approval process to determine if this policy has been promulgated during the January 2005 site visit.
Compliance Documentation: BPR – Internal Affairs Division – Standard Operating Procedure, page 15, item K1.
74. District Commanders will evaluate each investigation of an incident in their command to identify underlying problems and training needs. Any such problems or needs will be relayed in the form of a recommendation to the appropriate PGPD entity.
Compliance Implementation Summary: This paragraph of the MOA was assigned to the Bureau of Professional Responsibility, and the Patrol Services Bureau – Subject Matter Team(s) for implementation. Revisions to accommodate this MOA requirement were incorporated into the General Order Manual.
Compliance Documentation: RE-DRAFTED GOM Vol. 3, Section 3/811.05
26

Section VII – MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION.
75. The PGPD will enhance and expand its Early Identification System to include a computerized relational database for maintaining, integrating, and retrieving data necessary for supervision and management of the entire PGPD. The PGPD will regularly use this data to manage risk and liability; and to evaluate the performance of officers across all ranks, units, and shifts.
Compliance Implementation Summary: This paragraph of the MOA was assigned to the Early Identification System/Risk Management System (EIS/RMS) Select – Workgroup for implementation. This workgroup is comprised of members with subject matter expertise in technology related issues. This group conducted an assessment of the Department’s current Early Identification System in order to determine the feasibility of complying with the requirements of this paragraph. The initial assessment has concluded that the current department-wide Early Identification System is not capable of meeting the requirements set forth in the MOA. The workgroup has made a recommendation that the Department pursue a configuration that would result in the Department completely developing a new system, creating a centralized database and Case Management System that would be inclusive of an Internal Affairs Module - Early Identification System, specifically tailored to the needs of the Department while satisfying the DOJ requirements. A copy of the Request for Proposal for such a Records Management System developed by the County and inclusive of the MOA requirements was submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice on April 15, 2004 for review and comment.
In March of 2004, Prince George’s County issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a Public Safety Central Records Management System. The RFP outlined the bidding process for potential vendors, and also described the needs of the proposed system, which included an Appendix H that addressed the requirements for designing an Early Identification System, and a Canine Risk Management System as described in the Memorandum of Agreement, and the Consent Decree issued by the U.S. Department of Justice. A significant number of vendors responded and submitted proposals to RFP S04-074. A performance appraisal group was established and all proposals were thoroughly studied and evaluated.
In October 2004, the County selected Trans-Global Business Systems, a systems integration firm located in Prince George’s County to design and build the Public Safety Central Records Management System. Trans-Global Business Systems is using the Motorola NetRMS delivered application package, (formerly the CRISNET Net RMS application package). The Motorola Net RMS application package), has been used by other law enforcement agencies that are currently under U.S. Department of Justice MOA’s or consent Decree(s) in several other cities across the United States. During this reporting period the PGPD has had several meetings with the vendor, and the preliminary tasks necessary to develop a work plan to build the various modules that will operate the system have begun. In November 2004, the PGPD requested a technical assistance visit with Dr. John Klofas of the Independent Monitoring Team. The purpose of this visit was to obtain specific technical advice on the steps, and measures necessary for successfully implementing the Early Identification System (EIS) requirements of the MOA.
During this reporting period the PGPD also fulfilled a recommendation made by the Independent Monitor that personnel involved with the EIS project travel to the Pittsburgh, PA Police Department, and the New Jersey State Police for briefings on their experiences with implementing the Performance Assessment and Review System (PARS) in Pittsburgh, and the Management Awareness and Personnel Performance System (MAPPS), in New Jersey. PGPD personnel from the four (4) Bureaus attended these site visits. Compliance Documentation: DRAFT Data Input Plan dated December 30, 2004; EIS/RMS Action Plan dated December 15, 2004.
27

76. The new database will collect and record the following information for PGPD officers:
a. all USES-OF-FORCE; b. the number of OC spray and foam canisters, and ammunition for pepper ball launchers used by officers; c. all injuries to prisoners; d. all instances in which force is used and a subject is charged with “resisting arrest,” “assault on a police officer,” “disorderly conduct,” or “obstruction of justice;” e. all critical firearm discharges, both on-duty and off-duty; f. all complaints (and their dispositions); g. all criminal proceedings initiated, as well as all civil or administrative claims alleging misconduct, and all civil lawsuits served upon, the County, or its officers or agents, resulting from PGPD operations or the actions of PGPD personnel; h. all vehicle pursuits; and i. all disciplinary action taken against officers.
Compliance Implementation Summary: See paragraph #75.
Compliance Documentation: See paragraph #75.
77. The database will include, for all incidents in the database, appropriate identifying information for each involved officer (e.g., name, badge number, shift and supervisor) and subject (e.g., race, ethnicity or national origin).
Compliance Implementation Summary: See paragraph #75.
Compliance Documentation: See paragraph #75.
78. Pursuant to the schedule in paragraph 82, the PGPD will, within 90 days of the date of this agreement, prepare for the review and approval of DOJ, and thereafter implement, a protocol for using the new database. The County will submit for the review and approval of DOJ all proposed modifications to the protocol prior to implementing such modifications.
Compliance Implementation Summary: See paragraph #75. Additionally, the PGPD has begun developing a Use Protocol which will be the document that will outline how the Department will store, retrieve, and analyze all data within the new EIS system. The Use Protocol will also detail what type of reports will be created, how trends and patterns will be detected and by whom, as well as how supervisors, managers and Commanders will perform their assessments of their personnel, conduct appropriate intervention strategies concerning their personnel, and document their actions. The Use Protocol will also contain information on how the system and its functions will be audited, and who will perform the auditing tasks. This MOA paragraph has been delegated for implementation to a workgroup consisting of members of the Information Services Division, the Internal Affairs Division, and Professional Compliance Division, and the Community Policing Institute. This workgroup is using the technical assistance advice provided by Dr. John Klofas on November 11, 2004 as it prepares the Use Protocol, which is scheduled to be completed by February 1, 2005.
28

Compliance Documentation: See paragraph #75.
79. Pursuant to the schedule in paragraph 82, the PGPD will, within 90 days of the date of this agreement, prepare fo r the review and approval of DOJ, and thereafter implement, a plan for including appropriate fields and values of new and historical data into the risk management system (the "Data Input Plan"). The Data Input Plan will identify the data to be included and the means for inputting such data (direct entry or otherwise), the specific fields of information to be included, the past time periods for which information is to be included, the deadlines for inputting the data, and the responsibility for the input of the data. The Data Input Plan will include current and complete data in the risk management system.
Compliance Implementation Summary: See paragraph #75.
Compliance Documentation: see paragraph #75.
80. The protocol for using the database will include the following provisions and elements:
a. The protocol will comprise the following components: data storage, retrieval, and analysis; reporting, pattern identification; supervisory assessment and intervention; and documentation and audit.
b. The protocol will require the automated system to produce the following information, based on the data: i. number of incidents in each data category for each officer and for all officers in a unit; ii. average level of activity in each data category for each officer and for all officers in a unit; and iii. identification of patterns of activity in each data category for each officer and for all officers in a unit.
c. The protocol will require the system to generate reports on a monthly basis describing the data and data analysis and identifying individual and unit patterns.
d. The protocol will require that PGPD commanders, managers, and supervisors will review, on a regular basis but not less than quarterly, system reports, and will eva luate individual officer, supervisor, and unit activity.
e. The protocol will require that PGPD commanders, managers, and supervisors initiate intervention for individual officers, supervisors, and units based on appropriate activity and pattern assessment of the information contained in the database.
f. The protocol will require that intervention options include discussion by commanders, managers, supervisors, and officers; counseling; training; and supervised, monitored, and documented action plans and strategies designed to modify activity. All interventions will be documented in writing and entered into the automated system (appropriate intervention options will be employed based on the evaluation described in subsection (e) above).
g. The protocol will specify that actions taken as a result of information from the relational database be based on all relevant and appropriate information, including the nature of the officer’s assignment, crime trends and crime problems, and not solely on the number or percentages of incidents in any category of information recorded in the database.
h. The protocol will require that PGPD commanders, managers, and supervisors be evaluated on their ability to use the database to enhance effectiveness and reduce risk.
29

i. The protocol will require the PGPD to conduct audits of the system at reasonable intervals to ensure action is taken according to the process described above.
j. The protocol will require regular reviews, at no less tha n quarterly intervals, by appropriate managers of all relevant risk management system information to evaluate officer performance Department-wide, and to evaluate and make appropriate comparisons regarding the performance of all PGPD units in order to identify any significant patterns or series of incidents.
Compliance Implementation Summary: See paragraph #78.
Compliance Documentation: See paragraph #75.
81. The County will maintain all personally identifiable information about a PGPD officer included in the database during the officer’s employment with the PGPD and for the maximum length of time permitted by the LEOBR. Information necessary for aggregate statistical analysis will be maintained indefinitely in the database. On an ongoing basis, the PGPD will enter information into the risk management system in a timely, accurate, and complete manner, and maintain the data in a secure and confidential manner.
Compliance Implementation Summary: See paragraph #75 and #78.
Compliance Documentation: See paragraph #75.
82. The database will be developed and implemented according to the schedule below. The PGPD may satisfy the terms of this Agreement by obtaining necessary modifications to their existing database (subject to DOJ approval) or by obtaining a new database.
a. Within 90 days of the effective date of this Agreement, subject to the review and approval of DOJ, the PGPD will issue the Request for Proposal (RFP), a preliminary outline of the protocol for using the risk management system, and a preliminary outline of the Data Input Plan.
b. Within 120 days of the issuance of the RFP, or later with the agreement of DOJ, the PGPD will select the contractor to create the database or to make appropriate modifications to an existing database to bring it into compliance with this Agreement.
c. Within 90 days of the effective date of this Agreement, the PGPD will submit the final protocol for using the risk management system and the final Data Input Plan to DOJ for review and approval. The PGPD will share drafts of this document with DOJ and the Monitor (a position described in Section VIII) to allow DOJ and the Monitor to become familiar with the document as it develops and to provide informal comments on it.
d. Within 12 months of selecting the contractor, the County will have ready for testing a beta version of the database consisting of the following elements:
i. server hardware and operating systems installed, configured and integrated with the PGPD’s existing automated systems;
ii. necessary data base software installed and configured; iii. data structures created, including interfaces to source data; and iv. the use-of- force information system completed, including historic data.
DOJ and the Monitor will have the opportunity to participate in testing the beta version using use of force data and test data created specifically for purposes of checking the database.
30

e. The database computer program and comp uter hardware will be operational and fully implemented within 18 months of the selection of the contractor.
Compliance Implementation Summary: See paragraph #75 and #78.
Compliance Documentation: See paragraph #75
83. Prior to implementation of the database contemplated in this Agreement, the PGPD will maintain and use existing databases and resources to the fullest extent possible, to identify patterns of conduct by PGPD officers or groups of officers.
Compliance Implementation Summary: See paragraph #75. The Department continues to utilize the current EIS system and the existing Data Input Plan until a new EIS is developed.
Compliance Documentation: PGPD Early Identification System Manual.
84. Following the initial implementation of the database, and as experience and the availability of new technology may warrant, the PGPD may propose to add, subtract, or modify data tables and fields, modify the list of documents scanned or electronically attached, and add, subtract, or modify standardized reports and queries. The PGPD will submit all such proposals for review and approval by DOJ before implementation.
Compliance Implementation Summary: See paragraph #75. The Department continues to utilize the current EIS system and the existing Data Input Plan until a new EIS is developed. However, a separate policy will be developed to address this paragraph more specifically.
Compliance Documentation: PGPD Early Identification System Manual.
85. The PGPD will develop a protocol for conducting audits. The protocol will be used by each officer or supervisor charged with conducting audits. The protocol will establish a regular and fixed schedule to ensure that such audits occur with sufficient frequency, and cover all six PGPD districts.
Compliance Implementation Summary: This paragraph of the MOA was assigned to the Bureau of Professional Responsibility – Subject Matter Team for implementation. Based on the comments made by the Independent Monitor in the 2nd. Quarterly Report, the PGPD has re-drafted the BPR Professional Compliance Division’s Standard Operating Procedure to address those concerns.
Compliance Documentation: RE-DRAFTED portions of the BPR- Professional Compliance Division – Standard Operating Procedure, page 6, item # H-5; Appendix A, pages 32 – 33.
86. The PGPD will conduct the following audits pursuant to the protocol in paragraph 85:
a. It will conduct regularly scheduled quarterly audits, covering all six districts, that examine citizen complaints processed through the CCOP, including auditing selected samples of complaints that were resolved through the CCOP, contacting the complainants to evaluate whether the actions and views of the citizen were captured correctly in the CCOP report, and examining whether there is consistency in the
31

CCOP across districts. It will issue a report on the results which will be provided to each district commander. Each district commander will review the report in regard to all officers under their command involved in an incident and, if appropriate, the PGPD will impose disciplinary or non-disciplinary corrective action.
b. It will conduct semi-annual integrity audits and issue a report on the investigations conducted by BPR. The report will evaluate BPR’s investigation of selected use of force and citizen complaints. The report will assess the reliability and completeness of BPR’s canvassing and interviewing of witnesses, preservation and analysis of the incident scene, and the appropriateness of BPR’s conclusions.
Compliance Implementation Summary: The specific responsibilities outlined under this MOA requirements, cannot be fulfilled by the Police Departments internal auditing function. This would pose a conflict of interest between the Department and the Citizen Complaint Oversight Panel, which has oversight responsibility for monitoring the performance of the Department and the way it receives, processes, investigates and resolves citizen complaints. The Police Department referred this matter to the County’s Office of Law for resolution, and a letter proposing a resolution was sent to the U.S. Department of Justice during this reporting period.
Compliance Documentation: Copy of a letter from the Office of the County Attorney to USDOJ.
87. The PGPD will semi-annually solicit in writing from local prosecutors whether the prosecutors are aware of any issues with any individual officer or Department-wide performance.
Compliance Implementation Summary: This paragraph of the MOA was assigned to the Bureau of Professional Responsibility for implementation. The appropriate revisions to the General Order Manual were made to incorporate the provisions of this MOA paragraph. The Independent Monitor has indicated in the 2nd. Quarterly Report that the PGPD is in “Pending Compliance regarding this MOA paragraph since the G.O was approved after September 30, 2004.
Compliance Documentation: GOM Vol. 2, Section 2/305
88. The PGPD will continue to make its best efforts to operate video cameras in all currently equipped vehicles. The PGPD is encouraged to continue developing a policy on video cameras that will require:
a. mandatory activation for all traffic stops and pursuits that continues until the motor vehicle stop is completed and the stopped vehicle departs, or until the officer’s participation in the motor ve hicle stop ends;
b. to the extent practical, manual activation for incidents in which the prisoner being transported is violent;
c. supervisors to review the tapes in all cars of all officers listed in any PGPD report regarding any incident involving injuries to a prisoner or an officer, uses of force, vehicle pursuits, and citizen complaints; and
d. that the PGPD retain and preserve tapes for at least 90 days, or as long as necessary for incidents subject to investigation.
32

Compliance Implementation Summary: This paragraph of the MOA was assigned to the Support Services Bureau – Mobile Video Section for revisions based on the Independent Monitors 2nd. Quarterly Report.
Compliance Documentation: GOM Vol. 4 Section 4/203 – Mobile Video System. RE-DRAFTED portions of the Mobile Video System – Standard Operating Procedure.
89. If an officer actively participates in a motor vehicle stop and is aware that the motor vehicle stop was not recorded using the video camera equipment, the officer will notify the shift supervisor of the reason the stop was not recorded.
Compliance Implementation Summary: See paragraph 88a.
Compliance Documentation: See paragraph 88a.
90. The PGPD will conduct periodic random reviews of mobile camera videotapes for training and integrity purposes. Supervisors conducting these reviews will document their activity in a log book. In addition, the PGPD will require periodic random surveys of mobile video recorder equipment to confirm that they are in proper working order.
Compliance Imp lementation Summary: This paragraph of the MOA was assigned to the Support Services Bureau – Mobile Video Camera Section, the Patrol Services Bureau, and the Bureau of Professional Responsibility – Subject Matter Team(s) for implementation. These teams have revised and updated the affected General Order policy, and an updated Mobile Video Camera Section Standard Operating Procedure to reflect the requirements of this paragraph. Additionally, the Professional Compliance Division (PCD) of the Bureau of Professional Responsibility is responsible for conducting random monthly inspections of Mobile Video Section videotapes, and the PCD Standard Operating Procedure has been updated to satisfy this requirement.
Compliance Documentation: GOM Vol. 4 Section 4/203 – Mobile Video System. RE-DRAFTED portions of the Mobile Video System – Standard Operating Procedure. BPR – Professional Compliance Division Standard Operating Procedure, Appendix A, page 32.
Section VIII – MONITORING, REPORTING, AND IMPLEMENTATION
96. Subject to the limitations set forth in this paragraph, the PGPD will reopen for further investigation any BPR investigation (including use of force and citizen complaint investigations) the Monitor determines to be incomplete. The Monitor will provide written instructions for completing any investigation determined to be incomplete. The Monitor will provide binding written recommendations to the Chief of Police and BPR to reopen an incomplete investigation. The Monitor will provide these recommendations so that the directive given by the Chief of Police to implement the Monitor’s instructions is given within a reasonable period following the investigation’s conclusion. The Monitor may not exercise this authority concerning any investigation the disposition of which has been officially communicated to the officer who is the subject of the investigation.
Compliance Implementation Summary: This task was assigned to the Compliance Coordination Team (CCT) for implementation. During this reporting period the CCT has continued to gather all signature receipt forms from the Department, acknowledging receipt and awareness of these procedures.
33

Compliance Documentation: On August 31, 2004 a Chief’s Memorandum to all Prince George’s County Personnel outlining selected paragraphs from Section VIII of the Memorandum of Agreement regarding the Independent Monitor and the monitor’s functions and role, was signed by Chief High. On September 2, 2004, a Department-wide electronic mail (email) message was sent to all Commanders and Directors, directing them to ensure that all personnel under their commands receive and sign for the above referenced Chief’s Memorandum. The Independent Monitor’s 2nd. Quarterly Report indicates that the PGPD is “In Compliance” for Phase I, regarding this MOA paragraph.
97. The parties agree that the PGPD will hire and retain, or reassign a current PGPD employee or independent contractor, for the duration of this Agreement, to serve as a full-time PGPD Compliance Coordinator. The Compliance Coordinator will serve as a liaison between the PGPD, the Monitor and DOJ, and will assist with the PGPD’s compliance with this Agreement. At a minimum, the Compliance Coordinator will: coordinate the PGPD’s compliance and implementation activities; facilitate the provision of data, documents and other access to PGPD employees and material to the Monitor and DOJ as needed; ensure that all documents and records are maintained as provided in this Agreement; and assist in assigning compliance tasks to PGPD personnel, as directed by the Chief of Police or his designee. The PGPD Compliance Coordinator will take primary responsibility for collecting the information the Monitor requires to carry out the terms of this Agreement.
Compliance Implementation Summary: During the current reporting period, the Office of the Compliance Coordinator was re-assigned to report directly to the Chief of Police. A memorandum dated October 20, 2004 was sent Department-wide notifying all Commanders/Directors of this organizational change. The Independent Monitor’s 2nd. Quarterly Report indicates that the PGPD is “In Compliance” for Phase I, regarding this MOA paragraph.
Compliance Documentation: Chief of Police Memorandum dated October 20, 2004, to all Commanders/Directors.
99. The Monitor shall have full and direct access to all PGPD employees and facilities that the Monitor reasonably deems necessary to carry out the duties assigned to the Monitor by this Agreement. The Monitor shall cooperate with the County and the PGPD to access people and facilities in a reasonable manner that, consistent with the Monitor’s responsibilities, minimizes interference with daily operations.
Compliance Implementation Summary: The Independent Monitor’s 2nd. Quarterly Report indicates that the PGPD is “In Compliance” for Phase I, regarding this MOA paragraph. During this reporting period the CCT has continued to gather all signature receipt forms from the Department, acknowledging receipt and awareness of these procedures.
Compliance Documentation: On August 31, 2004 a Chief’s Memorandum to all Prince George’s County Personnel outlining selected paragraphs from Section VIII of the Memorandum of Agreement regarding the Independent Monitor and the monitor’s functions and role, was signed by Chief High. On September 2, 2004, a Department-wide electronic mail (email) message was sent to all Commanders and Directors, directing them to ensure that all personnel under their commands receive and sign for the above referenced Chief’s Memorandum.
100. The Monitor shall have full and direct access to all County and PGPD documents that the Monitor reasonably deems necessary to carry out the duties assigned to the Monitor by this Agreement, except any documents protected by the attorney-client privilege. Should the County or the PGPD decline to provide the Monitor with access to a document based on attorney-client privilege, the County shall provide
34

the Monitor and DOJ with a log describing the document.
Compliance Implementation Summary: The Independent Monitor’s 2nd. Quarterly Report indicates that the PGPD is “In Compliance” for Phase I, regarding this MOA paragraph. During this reporting period the CCT has continued to gather all signature receipt forms from the Department, acknowledging receipt and awareness of these procedures.
Compliance Documentation: On August 31, 2004 a Chief’s Memorandum to all Prince George’s County Personnel outlining selected paragraphs from Section VIII of the Memorandum of Agreement regarding the Independent Monitor and the monitor’s functions and role, was signed by Chief High. On September 2, 2004, a Department-wide electronic mail (email) message was sent to all Commanders and Directors, directing them to ensure that all personnel under their commands receive and sign for the above referenced Chief’s Memorandum.
102. The Monitor and DOJ shall provide the County or the PGPD with reasonable notice of a request for copies of documents. Upon such request, the County and the PGPD shall provide the Monitor and DOJ with copies (electronic, where readily available) of any documents that the Monitor and DOJ are entitled to access under this Agreement.
Compliance Implementation Summary: The Independent Monitor’s 2nd. Quarterly Report indicates that the PGPD is “In Compliance” for Phase I, regarding this MOA paragraph. During this reporting period the CCT has continued to gather all signature receipt forms from the Department, acknowledging receipt and awareness of these procedures.
Compliance Documentation: On August 31, 2004 a Chief’s Memorandum to all Prince George’s County Personnel outlining selected paragraphs from Section VIII of the Memorandum of Agreement regarding the Independent Monitor and the monitor’s functions and role, was signed by Chief High. On September 2, 2004, a Department-wide electronic mail (email) message was sent to all Commanders and Directors, directing them to ensure that all personnel under their commands receive and sign for the above referenced Chief’s Memorandum.
104. For the purpose of implementing this Agreement, the Monitor shall have direct access to all documents in criminal investigation files that have been closed by the PGPD. The Monitor shall also have direct access to all arrest reports, warrants, and warrant applications whether or not contained in open criminal investigation files; where practicable arrest reports, warrants and warrant applications shall be obtained from sources other than open criminal investigation files.
Compliance Implementation Summary: The Independent Monitor’s 2nd. Quarterly Report indicates that the PGPD is “In Compliance” for Phase I, regarding this MOA paragraph. During this reporting period the CCT has continued to gather all signature receipt forms from the Department, acknowledging receipt and awareness of these procedures.
Compliance Documentation: On August 31, 2004 a Chief’s Memorandum to all Prince George’s County Personnel outlining selected paragraphs from Section VIII of the Memorandum of Agreement regarding the Independent Monitor and the monitor’s functions and role, was signed by Chief High. On September 2, 2004, a Department-wide electronic mail (email) message was sent to all Commanders and Directors, directing them to ensure that all personnel under their commands receive and sign for the above referenced Chief’s Memorandum.
35

107. Within 90 days following entry of this Agreement and no later than every three months thereafter until this Agreement is terminated, the County shall file with the Monitor, with a copy to the DOJ, a status report delineating the steps taken by the County and the PGPD during the reporting period to comply with each provision of this Agreement. The County shall also file such a report documenting the steps taken to comply with each provision of this Agreement during the term of this Agreement 120 days before the end of the Agreement’s term.
Implementation Summary: The Department submitted its third status report to the Independent Monitor and the USDOJ, on December 31, 2004.
Compliance Documentation: 3rd. Status Report on the Memorandum of Agreement dated December 31, 2004.
108. During the term of this Agreement, the County and the PGPD shall maintain all records necessary to document their compliance with the terms of this Agreement and all documents expressly required by this Agreement.
Compliance Implementation Summary: This task was assigned to the Compliance Coordination Team for implementation. The Compliance Coordination Team maintains all records to demonstrate the Department’s compliance with the MOA both in hardcopy and electronic formats as applicable. The Independent Monitor’s 2nd. Quarterly Report indicates that the PGPD is “In Compliance” for Phase I, regarding this MOA paragraph.
Compliance Documentation: On August 31, 2004 a Chief’s Memorandum to all Prince George’s County Personnel outlining selected paragraphs from Section VIII of the Memorandum of Agreement regarding the Independent Monitor and the monitor’s functions and role, was signed by Chief High. On September 2, 2004, a Department-wide electronic mail (email) message was sent to all Commanders and Directors, directing them to ensure that all personnel under their commands receive and sign for the above referenced Chief’s Memorandum.
109. The County shall implement immediately all provisions of this Agreement which involve the continuation of current PGPD policies, procedures, and practices. The remaining provisions shall be implemented either by the specified implementation date or, for those provisions that have no specified implementation date, as soon as is reasonably practicable and no later than 120 days after this Agreement’s effective date.
Compliance Implementation Summary: The Department has implemented those provisions of the MOA that address the continuation of current policies, procedures, and practices. Additionally the PGPD continues the revision and re-drafting process on all affected policies and procedures identified by the Independent Monitor in their 2nd. Quarterly Report as being non-compliant with the requirements of the MOA. The Independent Monitor’s 2nd. Quarterly Report indicates that the PGPD is “In Compliance” for Phase I, regarding this MOA paragraph.
Compliance Documentation: See Appendix.
36

Appendix.
• RE-DRAFTED portions of General Order Manual (GOM) Policy - Volume (Vo l.) 4, Section 4/242. RE-DRAFTED portions of General Order Manual (GOM) Policy - Volume (Vol.) 3, Section 3/901, 3/902, 3/903. General Order Manual (GOM) Policy - Volume (Vol.) 3, Section 3/906.10, 3/906.15. General Order Manual (GOM) Policy - Volume (Vol.) 3, Section 3/906.20 RE-DRAFTED portions of General Order Manual (GOM) Policy - Volume (Vol.) 3, Section 3/903.10 General Order Manual (GOM) Policy - Volume (Vol.) 3, Section 3/906.25 General Order Manual (GOM) Policy - Volume (Vol.) 3, Section 3/903.05 General Order Manual (GOM) Policy - Volume (Vol.) 3, Section 3/901.10 General Order Manual (GOM) Policy - Volume (Vol.) 3, Section 3/903.10 General Order Manual (GOM) Policy - Volume (Vol.) 6, Section 6/204.05, 6/204.10, 6/204.15 RE-DRAFTED portions of General Order Manual (GOM) Policy - Volume (Vol.) 3, Section 3/919, 3/919.25 General Order Manual (GOM) Policy - Volume (Vol.) 6, Section 6/205.05 General Order Manual (GOM) Policy - Volume (Vol.) 6, Section 6/201.10 General Order Manual (GOM) Policy - Volume (Vol.) 6, Section 6/205.15 RE-DRAFTED portions of General Order Manual (GOM) Policy - Volume (Vol.) 6, Section 6/206 General Order Manual (GOM) Policy - Volume (Vol.) 3, Section 3/810.10, 3/810.15 General Order Manual (GOM) Policy - Volume (Vol.) 3, Section 3/811.05, 3/811.40 General Order Manual (GOM) Policy - Volume (Vol.) 4, Section 4/203. DRAFT Police Officers Guide for handling incidents involving the Mentally Ill Current Prince George’s County Mobile Crisis Team Memorandum of Agreement RE-DRAFTED portions of the PGPD - Use of Force Training Guide 37

RE-DRAFTED portions of the PGPD – Use of Force Continuum PGPD - Bureau of Professional Responsibility (BPR) – IAD Standard Operating Procedures PGPD – Bureau of Professional Responsibility (BPR) – SIRT Standard Operating Procedures PGPD – Bureau of Professional Responsibility (BPR) – PCD Standard Operating Procedures RE-DRAFTED portions of the PGPD – Community Policing Institute OC Spray Lesson Plan PGPD- Community Policing Institute Standard Operating Procedures PGPD – BPR/CPI Joint Training Curriculum “Internal Investigations”. PGPD- BPR – Administrative Investigations Guide • DRAFT Use of Force Report Forms ref: MOA paragraph #40 • Directives Action Plan Memo dated December 22, 2004 • Early Identification System Action Plan Memo dated December 15, 2004 • Use of Force Reporting Action Plan Memo dated December 23, 2004 • Copy of a Letter from the County Attorney to USDOJ ref: MOA paragraph #86a • Copy of a letter from the PGPD to the County Attorney ref: MOA paragraph #52 • Email Message from the County Attorney to the PGPD ref: MOA paragraph #72 RE-DRAFTED portions of the PGPD – CPI Field Training Officer Protocol PGPD – BPR Police Accountablity Project items: Placards, brochures, videotapes PGPD – BPR Letter to the Citizens Complaint Oversight Panel (CCOP) dated March 15, 2004 RE-DRAFTED PGPD – EIS Data Input Plan dated December 30, 2004 Prince George’s County Government - Request for Proposal No. S04-074 – Record Management System. RE-DRAFTED portions of the PGPD – Mobile Video System Standard Operating Procedure Police Chief’s Memorandum regarding the role of the Independent Monitor, dated August 31, 2004.
38

 
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE THURSDAY, JANUARY 22, 2004 WWW.USDOJ.GOV

CRT (202) 514-2008 TDD (202) 514-1888

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SIGNS AGREEMENTS GOVERNING USE OF CANINES AND FORCE WITH PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Justice Department today announced the successful resolution of its three-year investigation into the use of force by the Prince George’s County, Maryland Police Department. R. Alexander Acosta, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, announced the signing of two agreements between the Department, the County, and the Prince George’s County Police Department (PGPD). The parties entered into a consent decree governing the PGPD’s Canine Section and a memorandum of agreement (MOA) addressing the department-wide use of force.
“Today’s agreements underscore the seriousness with which the Justice Department reviews allegations of police misconduct," said R. Alexander Acosta, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. "Prince George's County and its police department should be commended for reaching a resolution in this matter. This is an example of the success that can be achieved when people come together in the pursuit of a common goal. Today's settlements will yield lasting benefits for the citizens of Prince George's County.”
The agreements require widespread reform in PGPD’s use of canines and force. In addition to establishing policies governing the use of canines and the use of force, these agreements also establish specific training requirements and accountability practices. Most notably, the agreements will require PGPD to take the following steps:
reform its use of force policies, as well as its training, reporting, and accountability procedures;
adopt and implement a “guard and bark” methodology for canines, whereby canines will locate suspects and hold them at bay by barking loudly; use of biting is restricted to specific incidents where necessary for arrest or safety of officers or civilians;
create a special board to review all firearm discharges;
operate a system to manage risk regarding officer performance;
effectively review canine bites and other related activity; and

investigate and review misconduct allegations.
The agreements resolve an investigation first initiated in July 1999, when the Justice Department began reviewing PGPD’s use of canines. Subsequently, in October 2000, the Justice Department began investigating broader allegations of excessive force. The agreements announced today fully resolved those investigations.
In order to ensure the effective implementation of the agreements, the Justice Department will continue to monitor the Prince George’s County Police Department for the next three years. The Department will also remain involved through the offer of technical assistance.
The Fraternal Order of Police, which met with the Department regarding the settlement, stated, “Based upon our conversations with members of the Civil Rights Division, we are satisfied that the recommendations are consistent with policies implemented by the current police administration. We are confident that the Prince George’s County Police Department will be able to satisfy the requirements of the Justice Department. We applaud the current police administration for having the forethought to address most of these issues preemptively.”
This Administration has made a particular effort to resolve police misconduct complaints. Since 2001, the Justice Department has entered into 12 settlement agreements resolving law enforcement misconduct investigations - a six-fold increase over the two investigations resolved through settlements during the three preceding years. In 2003, the Justice Department resolved investigations of police misconduct involving the Villa Rica, Georgia Police Department, the Detroit, Michigan Police Department, and the Mount Prospect, Illinois Police Department.